Changes

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?===

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.