Changes

According to exact calculations (as in this case the Newtonina calculations are), not refuted yet by any cosmologist (while several looked at them including a professor of mathematics teaching a few years earlier the General Relativity in Cambridge, Massachusetts <ref>Prof. Tadeusz Bałaban, presently tenured professor at [[Rutgers University]] in New Jersey, who checked the calculations in February 1985 before saying that they don't contain any mathematical errors, after which they were sent them to ''[["Nature"]]'', where the editor rejected them for his disbelief of them without any peer review. .</ref> the universe is stationary, as it was assumed in the first Einsteins model universe of 1917, its [[Hubble constant]] (ratio of assumed recession velocity of galaxies to their distance). In reality Hubble constant turns out to be <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 <math>6 \times 10^{-27}kg/m^3</math> and illusion of accelerating expansion with <math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math> that was  observed in 1998 with accuracy of one standard deviation and therefore confirmed observationally, as much as we need to confirm the observation of such a simple thing.

According to exact calculations (as in this case the Newtonina calculations are), not refuted yet by any cosmologist (while several looked at them including a professor of mathematics teaching a few years earlier the General Relativity in Cambridge, Massachusetts <ref>Prof. Tadeusz Bałaban, presently tenured professor at [[Rutgers University]] in New Jersey, who checked the calculations in February 1985 before saying that they don't contain any mathematical errors, after which they were sent them to ''[["Nature"]]'', where the editor rejected them for his disbelief of them without any peer review. .</ref> the universe is stationary, as it was assumed in the first Einsteins model universe of 1917, its [[Hubble constant]] (ratio of assumed recession velocity of galaxies to their distance). In reality Hubble constant turns out to be <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 <math>6 \times 10^{-27}kg/m^3</math> and illusion of accelerating expansion with <math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math> that was  observed in 1998 with accuracy of one standard deviation and therefore confirmed observationally, as much as we need to confirm the observation of such a simple thing.

The almost Newtonian calculations suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as <math>d \tau/dt=exp(-r/R_E)</math>, where <math>d \tau/dt</math> is rate of time at distant galaxy <math>\tau</math> in relation to our time <math>t</math>, <math>r</math> is distance to this galaxy and <math>R_E</math> is the mentioned already [[Einstein's radius]].

The almost Newtonian calculations suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as  

:<math>d \tau/dt=exp(-r/R_E)</math>,  

where <math>\tau</math> is proper time of distant galaxy, <math>t</math> is our time (in our Galaxy), <math>r</math> is distance to this remote galaxy, and <math>R_E</math> is the mentioned already [[Einstein's radius]].

Why Newtonian calculations in flat space produce as a result [[Einstein's radius]] of curvature of space? Isn't something to wonder about? Not to mention the observed result of cosmological redshift. And observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

Why Newtonian calculations in flat space produce as a result [[Einstein's radius]] of curvature of space? Isn't something to wonder about? Not to mention the observed result of cosmological redshift. And observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

And what is ''gravitational energy'' that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational force" that we know from Einsteins that it is not there at all? Here we came to the real question. The answer is interesting though very, very, simple: It is energy content of matter in <math>E=mc^2</math>. What?! Says every physicists I told this story to. It it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school.  

And what is ''gravitational energy'' that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational force" that we know from Einsteins that it is not there at all? Here we came to the real question. The answer is interesting though very, very, simple: It is energy content of matter in <math>E=mc^2</math>. What?! Says every physicists I told this story to. It it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school.  

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were not published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but supressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student enymore and so my paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif and such, shouldn't be linked to from their server. So I just typed it in manually into CP server and let see how long it survives here. For the time being you, the readers of CP, may find it in a form of my paper [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] or in simpler version that a high school student may reapeat herself or himself [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] in a form of 11 step derivation of ''cosmological redshift'' for our universe, that the Big Bang aficionados neglected to calculate before jumping to conclusion that the universe is ''surely'' expanding. And this way converting the majority of non believers into believers in ''creation'' of the whole universe out of nothing as it was planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who belived in it too. Though he believed that the expansion would turn out to be decelerating according to his theory while it turned out to be apparent and looking like accelerating. That I menaged to explain after splitting the illusion of acceleration to Taylor series and confirming the observations with accuracy to one standard deviation. So the expansion being an illusion got confirmed by all observations.  

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were not published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but supressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student enymore and so my paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif and such, shouldn't be linked to from their server. So I just typed it in manually into CP server and let see how long it survives here.  

 

For the time being you, the readers of CP, may find it in a form of my paper [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] or in simpler version that a high school student may repeat herself or himself [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] in a form of 11 step derivation of ''cosmological redshift'' for our universe, that the Big Bang aficionados neglected to calculate before jumping to conclusion that the universe is ''surely'' expanding. And this way converting the majority of non believers into believers in ''creation'' of the whole universe out of nothing as it was planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who believed in it too. Though he believed that the expansion would turn out to be decelerating according to his theory while it turned out to be apparent and looking like accelerating. That I managed to explain after splitting the illusion of acceleration to Taylor series and confirming the observations with accuracy to one standard deviation. So the expansion being an illusion got confirmed by all observations. Though still not accepted by scientific journals, so the astronomers are sent on a wild goose chase to find this "[[dark energy]]" somewhere in the universe.

[[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 03:18, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

[[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 03:18, 30 August 2011 (EDT)