Changes

IMHO the main open problem in cosmology is the problem whether the universe is expanding or not. According to opinion of guys who look for careers in cosmology it is expanding (based on doctored Einstein's equation <math>R_{\mu\nu}-(R/2)g_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>) but in reality may be stationary <math>H_{\mu\nu}=-8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>, where <math>H_{\mu\nu}</math> is what I call ''"Hubble tensor"''. As it follows from his original equation that contained an error removed by Hilbert (mentioned also by MM87, non zero trace) and also patched later with cosmological constant to keep his ''Field Equation'' stable.

IMHO the main open problem in cosmology is the problem whether the universe is expanding or not. According to opinion of guys who look for careers in cosmology it is expanding (based on doctored Einstein's equation <math>R_{\mu\nu}-(R/2)g_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>) but in reality may be stationary <math>H_{\mu\nu}=-8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>, where <math>H_{\mu\nu}</math> is what I call ''"Hubble tensor"''. As it follows from his original equation that contained an error removed by Hilbert (mentioned also by MM87, non zero trace) and also patched later with cosmological constant to keep his ''Field Equation'' stable.

So let's analyze the situation in cosmology: Why it still contains this cosmological constant that Einstein considered ''"the biggest blunder of my life"''?  

So let's analyze the situation in cosmology: Why its ''"standard model"'' still contains the cosmological constant that Einstein considered ''"the biggest blunder of my life"''?  

My answer is this: because general relativity is most likely not Einstein's (a Patent Office clerk) but his wife's, Mileva Marić (a physicist way better than her husband), who as a woman didn't have a chance to publish such work as relativity and might have reason to be angry at her husband and so didn't want to show him the obvious way of getting rid of his cosmological constant (which doesn't exist anyway so it was not any loss to science).  

My answer is this: because general relativity is most likely not Einstein's (a Patent Office clerk) but his wife's, Mileva Marić (a physicist way better than her husband), who as a woman didn't have a chance to publish such work as relativity and might have reason to be angry at her husband and so didn't want to show him the obvious way of getting rid of his cosmological constant (which doesn't exist anyway so it was not any loss to science).  

Now, If I, a sculptor and an engineer knowing practicaly no tensor calculus (and almost no English) can show what Mileva Marić (a physicists and an astronomer, knowing "Einstein's theory" in and out) didn't tell her husband, would it be credible enough that it might have happened this way? And that the universe is really not expanding. As I keep saying since 1985, similarly as Mileva Marić, not being able to publish a paper, that the only referee who saw it couldn't falsify and so recommended its rejection only on faith in expansion. Would it? [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:34, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Now, If I, a sculptor and an engineer knowing practicaly no tensor calculus (and almost no English) can show what Mileva Marić (a physicists and an astronomer, knowing "Einstein's theory" in and out) didn't tell her husband, would it be credible enough that it might have happened this way? And that the universe is really not expanding. As I keep saying since 1985, similarly as Mileva Marić, not being able to publish a paper, that the only referee who saw it couldn't falsify and so recommended its rejection only on faith in expansion. Would it? [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:34, 18 August 2011 (EDT)