Changes

Astrophysicists never even calculated how much of ''[[intrinsic redshift]]'' there is in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the universe is expanding. Had they calculated, or asked somebody who knows high school calculus, they would have avoided the embarrassment<ref>I've seen an appeal of an astronomer to Carl Sagan to end this scandal with Big Bang since, as put by the author of the appeal, ''"it makes all astronomers look like idiots"'', but the lobby of [[relativists]] turned out to be stronger, and Carl Sagan didn't know that the Big Bang is a fake.</ref> and a hypothesis that the universe is expanding.

Astrophysicists never even calculated how much of ''[[intrinsic redshift]]'' there is in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the universe is expanding. Had they calculated, or asked somebody who knows high school calculus, they would have avoided the embarrassment<ref>I've seen an appeal of an astronomer to Carl Sagan to end this scandal with Big Bang since, as put by the author of the appeal, ''"it makes all astronomers look like idiots"'', but the lobby of [[relativists]] turned out to be stronger, and Carl Sagan didn't know that the Big Bang is a fake.</ref> and a hypothesis that the universe is expanding.

===There is more to gravitation than refuting the Big Bang===

===There is more to gravitation than refuting the Big Bang hypothesis===

This more is that except explaining the gravitational force by particles seeking the most probable location in spacetime of lowest energy, pushing in the process on other particles with a force that is called ''gravitational force''

This more is that except explaining the gravitational force by particles seeking in spacetime the most probable location of lowest energy, pushing in the process on other particles with a force that is called ''gravitational force''

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

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

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, 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]] in reality turns out to be  

According to exact calculations, 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]] in reality turns out to be (while at the beginning defined as <math>H_o=v/c/r</math> <math>v</math> is speed of recession of galaxy, <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, and <math>r</math> is distance to the galaxy).

:<math>H_o=c/R_E=70km/s/Mpc</math>,  

:<math>H_o=c/R_E=70km/s/Mpc</math>,  

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

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

considered realistic by astronomers who have read the derivation. The illusion of accelerating expansion comes out as  

considered realistic by astronomers who have seen the derivation. The illusion of accelerating expansion comes out as  

:<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 we need 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  

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

:<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]].

where <math>\tau</math> is proper time of distant galaxy, <math>t</math> is the 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 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 refuted by the lack of expansion of universe?<ref>And we remember that science works only through rejection of false claimes. Didn't Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler the authors of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'', that started the [[Big Bang]] craze, turned out to be cranks despite their mathematical sophistication? Which only proves that math is not science, and only physics is, which we knew anyway.</ref>

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 refuted by the lack of expansion of universe?<ref>And we remember that science works only through rejection of false claimes. Didn't Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler the authors of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'', that started the [[Big Bang]] craze, turned out to be cranks despite their mathematical sophistication? Which only proves that math is not science, and only physics is, which we knew anyway.</ref>