Changes

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).  

According to exact calculations, that in this case the Newtonian calculations are (and 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]]: assumed ratio of recession velocity of galaxies to their distance) in reality this ratio 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 it observationally.

According to exact calculations, that in this case the Newtonian calculations are (and 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]]: assumed ratio of recession velocity of galaxies to their distance) in reality this ratio 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. Therefore confirmed observationally, with maximum accuracy, with which we need to confirm observationally the theoretically predicted numbers to consder them in perfect agreement with observation.

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

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

Why Newtonian calculations in flat space produce as a result [[Einstein's radius]] of curvature of space?  

Why Newtonian calculations in flat space produce as a result [[Einstein's radius]] of curvature of space?  

Isn't it something to wonder about? Not to mention the simple calculation of observed cosmological redshift and its acceleration. Isn't it a proof telling that the Big Bang is a fake?<ref>And we remember that ascience works only through rejection of false clames of various cranks. Didn't Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler the authors of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'', that started the [[Big Bang]] craze, turned out to be such cranks despite their mathematical sophistication? Which only proved that math is not science, which we knew anyway.</ref>  

Isn't it something to wonder about? Not to mention the simple calculation of observed cosmological redshift and its acceleration. Isn't it a proof telling that the Big Bang is a fake?<ref>And we remember that ascience works only through rejection of false clames of various cranks. Didn't Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler the authors of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'', that started the [[Big Bang]] craze, turned out to be such cranks despite their mathematical sophistication? Which only proved that math is not science, which we knew anyway.</ref>

===And what happened to gravitational energy?===

===And what happened to gravitational energy?===