Changes

====Reformatted value of Hubble constant====

====Reformatted value of Hubble constant====

The first thing that I learned from my general relativity course in Harvard was that my result <math>\Delta H_o= \sqrt{4 \pi G \rho}</math> can be written as <math>H_o=c/R_E</math>, where <math>H_o</math> is as before [[Hubble constant]], <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, and <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius of universe]].

The first thing that I learned from my general relativity course in Harvard was that my result  

 

:<math>\Delta H_o= \sqrt{4 \pi G \rho}</math>  

 

can be written as  

 

:<math>H_o=c/R_E</math>,  

 

where <math>H_o</math> is as before [[Hubble constant]], <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, and <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius of universe]].

To make a long story short I wrote another paper based on my newly acquired knowledge of general relativity, using in it already my reformatted Hubble constant being now equal <math>H_o=c/R_E</math> and arguing with a referee for several weeks explaining also except the reasons for the necessity of the universe being stable the temperature of MCBR (Microwave Cosmic Background Radiation) and how it allows the calculation of average size of pieces of non luminous matter.  

To make a long story short I wrote another paper based on my newly acquired knowledge of general relativity, using in it already my reformatted Hubble constant being now equal <math>H_o=c/R_E</math> and arguing with a referee for several weeks explaining also except the reasons for the necessity of the universe being stable the temperature of MCBR (Microwave Cosmic Background Radiation) and how it allows the calculation of average size of pieces of non luminous matter.  

The referee seemed to be impressed but not knowing what else might be my weak points and being not able to refute my results for any mathematical or physical problems decided that he will reassess their rejection on the basis if their little interest to the readers of ''"Physical Review Letters"''. Which the referee did and so my next rejection was for the presumed little interest of the readers in cosmology.  

The referee seemed to be impressed but not knowing what else might be my weak points and being not able to refute my results for any mathematical or physical problems decided that he will reassess their rejection on the basis if their little interest to the readers of ''"Physical Review Letters"''. Which the referee did and so my next rejection was for the presumed little interest of the readers in cosmology.

====Ratio of radius of Earth orbit to itself====

====Ratio of radius of Earth orbit to itself====