Changes

:It looks rather obvious that the person who wrote the list of alleged Einstein's errors interprets terms not in the same way as contemporary physicists would. Whoever set the list should consult it with a physicist freshly from school since many terms in common language don't need to have the same meaninig in physics as they had in Einstein's times. E.g. word ''"mass"'' denoted now by ''m'', itself changed its meaning between Einstein's and contemporary times. It is presently the ''invariant mas'' while before, e.g. in ''"Feynman lectures on physics"'' <math>m</math> was strictly ''relativistic mass'' while ''"invariant mass"'' had to be denoted <math>m_o</math> which still causes endless arguments between physicists and engineers or chemists who each might use different conventions. It looks silly when alleged Einstein's error turns out to be due only to misunderstanding of a physical term. In Einstein's times photons, as today, had mass <math>m=h\nu/c^2</math> and only their <math>m_o=0</math>, which today is written <math>m=0</math> but only because '''idea''' of "mass" chaged, not its physics. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:It looks rather obvious that the person who wrote the list of alleged Einstein's errors interprets terms not in the same way as contemporary physicists would. Whoever set the list should consult it with a physicist freshly from school since many terms in common language don't need to have the same meaninig in physics as they had in Einstein's times. E.g. word ''"mass"'' denoted now by ''m'', itself changed its meaning between Einstein's and contemporary times. It is presently the ''invariant mas'' while before, e.g. in ''"Feynman lectures on physics"'' <math>m</math> was strictly ''relativistic mass'' while ''"invariant mass"'' had to be denoted <math>m_o</math> which still causes endless arguments between physicists and engineers or chemists who each might use different conventions. It looks silly when alleged Einstein's error turns out to be due only to misunderstanding of a physical term. In Einstein's times photons, as today, had mass <math>m=h\nu/c^2</math> and only their <math>m_o=0</math>, which today is written <math>m=0</math> but only because '''idea''' of "mass" chaged, not its physics. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Correcting the example #3 (Pioneer "anomaly") ==

== Correcting example #3 (Pioneer "anomaly") ==

For many years I'm trying to publish in any scientific peer reviewed establishment journal (to avoid accusations of crankery) the news that according to physics of Einstein's general relativity the universe works slightly differently than scientific establishment assumes. The most important difference is that the so called "cosmological redshift" is not produced by expansion of universe but by an interesting effect of relativity of time, verifyiable with simple, almost Newtonian math, by any bright high shool student. This effect is time running slower in deep space than at (any) observer proportionally to exponent of ratio of the distance between observer and the point in deep space to so called "Einstein's radius of curvature of space". Equally important part of this effect is that it predicts Pioneer "anomaly" within one standard deviation being about as it is observed <math>(7\times 10^{-10}m/s^2)</math>. I'm supplying here the paper that might support this bright high school student in his/her calculations of this effect that I call ''[http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm Hubble time dilation]'' and consider it being overlooked by all the Big Bang aficionados insisting on expansion of universe against better judgement of Einstein.

For many years I'm trying to publish in any scientific peer reviewed establishment journal (to avoid accusations of crankery) the news that according to physics of Einstein's general relativity the universe works slightly differently than scientific establishment assumes. The most important difference is that the so called "cosmological redshift" is not produced by expansion of universe but by an interesting effect of relativity of time, verifyiable with simple, almost Newtonian math, by any bright high shool student. This effect is time running slower in deep space than at (any) observer proportionally to exponent of ratio of the distance between observer and the point in deep space to so called "Einstein's radius of curvature of space". Equally important part of this effect is that it predicts Pioneer "anomaly" within one standard deviation being about as it is observed <math>(7\times 10^{-10}m/s^2)</math>. I'm supplying here the paper that might support this bright high school student in his/her calculations of this effect that I call ''[http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm Hubble time dilation]'' and consider it being overlooked by all the Big Bang aficionados insisting on expansion of universe against better judgement of Einstein.

A sad part of this story is that Einstein was right in his assumption that the universe is stationary (non expanding) and his critics supporting LeMaitre wrong but Einstein gave up arguing with [http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/3268.htm#fo idiots] to be able to work peacefully on other projects. And now we have a lame hypothesis of Big Bang which is physically impossible (for its creation of energy from nothing), and sceintific establishment who refuses to peer review papers supporting Einstein's original idea accidentally turning being right. As Einstein said: ''"when all the wise men decide that something can't be calculated, comes an ignorant who does not know it, and calculates it."'' What just happened in my case, but I might gladly show my calculations to any intelligent high school student to prove that he or she can make them too, despite that all the wise men couldn't. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

A sad part of this story is that Einstein was right in his assumption that the universe is stationary (non expanding) and his critics supporting LeMaitre wrong but Einstein gave up arguing with [http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/3268.htm#fo idiots] to be able to work peacefully on other projects. And now we have a lame hypothesis of Big Bang which is physically impossible (for its creation of energy from nothing), and sceintific establishment who refuses to peer review papers supporting Einstein's original idea accidentally turning being right. As Einstein said: ''"when all the wise men decide that something can't be calculated, comes an ignorant who does not know it, and calculates it."'' What just happened in my case, but I might gladly show my calculations to any intelligent high school student to prove that he or she can make them too, despite that all the wise men couldn't. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)