\n \nThe further detailes of this assumed expansion have been that its \nspeed is called by the astronomers Hubble’s constant and \nabbreviated to letter H, or more often to H0<\/sub> where \n“0” means that it is measured at the place in the \nuniverse where we are, since it turned out that farther from us \nit is slightly different and so it is “constant” only in one place \nin the universe.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\n“H” is the ratio of the assumed speed with which galaxies \nseem to fly away from us to the distance to those galaxies. \n\nIt is equal about 70 km\/s per each megaparsec of distance (Mpc in \nshort, a unit of distance used in astronomy, equal about 3,000,000 \nlight-years). \n\nSo if the galaxies at distance 1 Mpc fly away with velocities 70 km\/s \nthe galaxies that are twice as far from us, at 2 Mpc, seem to fly \naway with velocity about 140 km\/s, at 3 Mpc with about 210 km\/s \nand so on. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nTheir velocity increases supposedly until it becomes equal to the \nspeed of light (300,000 km\/s at about 4,000 Mpc), which cosmologists \ncall “reaching the particle horizon” since no particle sent out from \nthe earth can go beyond that limit since this particle would have \nto move with velocity greater than the speed of light which is \nimpossible. \n\nApparently, according to astronomers who believe that the universe \nis expanding, this impossibility makes no difference to galaxies \nsince their velocity increases beyond the speed of light at \nfarther distances. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThis is one of problems with the assumption that the universe is \nreally expanding and not just looks like it because of some other \nmechanism that produces Hubble’s redshift. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe problem with galaxies moving faster than speed of light \nis rationalized away by saying that \nit is not really velocities of galaxies<\/em> but only the \nincrease of the distance to them<\/em> (as it it were two \ndifferent things) caused by the increasing amount of space<\/em> \nbetween us and the galaxies (by some additional space appearing \nfrom “somewhere”).\n\nIt is supposed to be for the rason that Friedmann’s solutions \nof Einstein’s field equation require it when gik<\/sub> tensor \nof in this equation is symmetric (“Is it?” one might ask). \n\nFor curious minds: gik<\/sub> tensor is \na mathematical creature, a table containing 16 numbers for each \npoint in spacetime (such point being called “event”), which \ndescribes where and when the time runs slower than normal \nand where there is more space than it would be expected from the \nsimple Euclidean geometry. \n\nThis table (gik<\/sub> tensor) can be symmetric or non symmetric \ndepending on the properties of the spacetime it describes. \n\nThe cosmologists insist it has to be symmetric because then it is \n“elegant”.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe above rationalization seems to work on a principle that if one \nnames an old thing with a new name the majority of people tend to \nthink that it is a different thing (e.g. politicians are not \nstealing<\/em> money from taxpayers, but are just spending<\/em> \nmoney on various projects, e.g. rebuilding some countries, which \nrequires paying taxpayers money to companies the freinds of those \npoliticians happen to own, by sheer coincidence of course).\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nAnother problem with expanding universe is that to believe that \nthe universe is expanding one has to abandon the principle of \nconservation of energy. \n\nTo believe that the universe is expanding one has to believe \nthat energy just like space is created from nothing on daily basis.\n\nOf course it is no problem for religious people, but after reading \nmy first scientific book at the age of 12 I was not a religious \nperson anymore so this part of explanation of expanding universe \nphysics bothered me a lot.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe problem with conservation of energy in expanding universe \nis a more subtle problem than creating the whole universe from \nnothing as the “big bang” theory postulates. \n\nI skip the “big bang” though, since when a gross violation of \nsomething happens, like creation of whole universe from nothing, \npeople in general refuse to believe anything was violated, \nand so explaining it in a short text like this becomes impossible \nsince it is not only a matter of physics or science but also a \nmatter of overcoming cultural (or often religious) prejudices. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\nSo, for difficulties with human prejudices I skip the relation of the “big bang” theory \nto the expansion of the universe.\n \nThe curious characters can find it in any popular science book on \nastronomy. \n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe more interesting thing, the subtle relation of the expanding \nuniverse to the principle of conservation of energy is that this \nprinciple requires the existence of an effect called dynamical \nfriction<\/em>, which consist of exchange of kinetic energy of any \nmoving object in the universe with its environment.\n\nIn general it is the loss of kinetic energy of the object but it may \nbe also a gain and then the effect is called sling effect<\/em> \nand is used to accelerate spacecrafts to send them farther and \nfarther away from the sun.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe dynamical friction<\/em> happening to photons would cause \nthem to have resdhift exponentially changing with the distance they \ntravel. \n\nAnd exponential change with distance looks roughly as proportional \nto the distance for not too big distances. \n\nSo many people came up with an idea that the observed Hubble’s \nredshift might be caused by such “friction” and they called it \n“tired light effect”.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSo the subtle violation of the principle of energy that requires \nastronomers who believe that the universe is expanding to believe \nalso that energy can be created form nothing, is that they have to \nassume that the “tired light effect”, which the light would have, \nis constantly compensated by the creation of this additional energy \nthat the photons would lose to dynamical friction<\/em>.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nWhile discussing this thing with astrophysicists \nI’ve learned that astrophysicists apply a rationalization here, that \nseemingly bypasses the problem, by assuming that this dynamical \nfriction<\/em> in case of photons is not compensated (which seemingly \nsaves the principle of conservation of energy) but is \nnegligible<\/em>.\n\nThere exists even a back-of-envelope<\/em> Newtonian calculation \nbrought up by all astrophysicists asked about the problem, which\nseems to support this negligible<\/em> value of dynamical \nfriction<\/em> for photons.\n\nHowever this back-of-envelope<\/em> Newtonian calculation can \nbe legally applied only while certain condition is met, namely \nthe velocity of the object to which “Newtonian attractive force” is \napplied, has to be much smaller than the speed of light, which is \nobviosly not met in a case of photons.\n\nSo that the dynamical friction<\/em> is negligible<\/em> is \njust a wild guess and so it is actually assumed by astrophysicists \nwithout a proof.\n\nThis lack of proof is of course a bad thing. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nHowever it is even worse in the field called “cosmology”.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe cosmologists don’t assume that the effect of dynamical \nfriction<\/em> for photons is negligible<\/em> but that it is \nexactly zero<\/em>. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSo the cosmologists openly violate the conservation of energy through \ntheir math and they say that “energy is not conserved in general \nrelativity”. \n\nThey also refuse to discuss this issue so it is \nnot possible to learn from cosmologists why they prefer rather \nnon conservation of energy than non expanding universe.\n\nMy attempts to discuss this problem resulted in rejection of \nmy questions from the official physics discussion newsgroup \non the internet (sci.physics.research), as “too speculative”. \n\nI also received an explanation why such questions are “too \nspeculative”. \n\nAs Prof Baez the moderator in sci.physics.research wrote\n(http:\/\/www.lns.cornell.edu\/spr\/2001-04\/msg0032116.html):\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\n“It is always surprising when it happens, but sometimes to learn\nmore about the world we must stop asking certain questions…\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\n… namely, those based on false assumptions.”\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The false assumption according to Prof. Baez is that the \nenergy is conserved. He also wrote to me on another occasion:\n“Jim, it is not conserved”, when I kept bothering him with \nquestions how he imagines energy is conserved in a simple \ncase of a falling brick, since he wrote me also that it is \nconserved only in Newtonian cases. \n\nI thought that a falling brick might be such a case but\napparently Prof. Baez didn’t and it seems that he thinks that \nenergy is never coserved “in gravity”, and so finally I had \nto figure out all the gravitational implications of the \nprinciple of conservation of energy myself. \n\nWhich probably is a job better suited for a gravity \nphysicists than for a sculptor, unless there are no \ngravity physicists interested in such issues which \nsurely seems to be the case. \n\nI just keep wondering what are those scientists paid for.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe cosmologist can’t discuss the issue of conservation \nof energy since the violation of conservation of energy \nis built into the math that they apply through the \nassumed symmetry of mentioned earlier gik<\/sub> tensor. \n \nThis math that they use doesn’t correspond to any physics that \nwould be able to explain this math. \n\nSo the only thing that cosmologists can say is that math has priority \nover physics and since their math predicts non conservation of \nenergy the principle of conservation of energy (physical one, \ninduced only through experiments) is invalid in their \nopinion.\n\nThey call this math “general relativity” and\nit is almost the same as Einstein’s \ngeneral relativity<\/em> (that to avoid confusion I call most \nof the time Einsteinian gravity<\/em>) but with an additional \nassumption that gik<\/sub> tensor is symmetric \n(while Einstein’s general relativity<\/em> doesn’t require \nthis property from gik<\/sub>).\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSuch an assumption makes the tired light effect<\/em> (or \ndynamical friction<\/em> for photons) nonexistent (note: \nnot negligible<\/em> as astrophysicists think it is, but \nexactly zero<\/em>).\n\nIn other words, the math of the expansion (called Friedmann’s \nsolutions, or Robertson-Walker-Friedmann model) is based on an \nassumption that the so-called tired light effect<\/em> \ndoesn’t exist. \n\nWhile it is a right assumption, the wrong part of it is that in \nthe world where the principle of conservation of energy is valid \nthere exist a relativistic effect, which simulates tired light \neffect<\/em> exactly but is not represented by anything (and \ncan’t be because of symmetry of gik<\/sub> \ntensor) in Friedmann’s solutions. \n\nThat, as I found, is the reason why the contemporary general \nrelativity (not Einstein’s general relativity though) has to \nviolate the principle of conservation of energy.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nI call this relativistic effect that simulates the “tired \nlight” the general time dilation<\/em>.\n\nIt is an effect that in space containing \nmatter the time rate slows down exponentially with the distance \nat which the time rate is observed, which creates an illusion of \naccelerating expansion of the universe and “anomalous” (as \nastrophysicists who believe that the universe is expanding call \nit) acceleration of space probes.\n\nHowever I didn’t know that yet when I was wondering, because of \nthe math of “general realtivity” predicting non conservation of \nenergy (which I considered to be a defect of the theory) whether \nthe universe is expanding at all.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nIf it didn’t then it was interesting what would be the reason \nfor the Hubble’s redshift. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSo one morning in February 1985 I started to think about what might \nbe happening to a photon that is coming to us from a distant \ngalaxy that could make that photon having longer wavelength than \nphotons that come from the same kind of source of light but \nlocated close to us. \n\nI have been thinking about it many times before (using proverbial \nback-of-envelope calculations<\/em>) and got many results so \nlame that I couldn’t think that they explain the illusion of \nexpansion of the universe. \n\nI’ve always thought that the result come out so lame because some \nof my simplifying assumptions, which I did to facilitate the \ncalculations, were illegal. \n\nI just didn’t know which of them. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSo this time, unlike all other times, I decided to do the \ncalculations without any<\/em> simplifying assumptions \nthat might be relevant to the results. \n\nWithin a few hours I got a result that looked reasonable \n(a simple formula with one square root and no free parameters) \nwhich, as a by-product, implied that if \nHubble’s constant were 50 km\/s\/Mpc (which at that time was \nan estimated value of H) and the universe were not \nexpanding its mass density should be \n~3×10-27<\/sup> kg\/m3<\/sup>. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSince I didn’t know the density of the universe, to check my \nresult I phoned my friend who had the Encyclopedia \nBritannica<\/em> to look it up. \n\nIt turned out that the density of the universe is not known, \nbut it is estimated from about three times less to about three \ntimes more than what I’ve got. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThis was an indication that I may be on the right track, and \nit was enough for me to share my calculations with the \nscientific world. \n\nI was sure that the scientific world will be extremely happy \nthat someone finally had enough time to solve the problem of \nthe Hubble’s redshift. \n\nI thought that then the scientific world would take over from \nthere to fit the result into general relativity about which \nI didn’t know a thing at that time except that it is \napproximated arbitrarily well by the Newtonian gravity while \ncertain conditions are met, and so it didn’t matter that \nI did my calculations with Newtonian math only since this \ntime I met those conditions. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nI also noticed that all other times I didn’t meet those \nconditions because of the approximations that I introduced \nto simplify the calculations. \n\nBy the way, as I learned later, all astrophysicists do the \nsame erronous approximations when they try to estimate \nredshift in a stationary universe, which they know some must \nexist because of dynamical friction<\/em>. \n\nAnyway this time my calculations, without simplifing assumptions,\nhas predicted a non negligible<\/em> redshift in an amount \nexactly as it is observed in the universe and so I’ve thought \nthat they might have been right.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nFirst I sent the calculations to my friend, a math professor, \nwho a few years earlier had been teaching general relativity \nat Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. \n\nWhen my friend told me that the calculations don’t have any \nformal errors, I sent them to Nature<\/em>, a scientific \njournal I was subscribing to at that time. \n\nThe editor from Nature<\/em> returned my paper with a short note \nthat in his opinion the results are too speculative<\/em>. \n\nI was awfully surprised and curious what the speculative part might \nbe and I asked the editor to be more specific. \n\nThe editor replied that his opinion may be wrong but it is final. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nI started checking my math again.\n \nIt seemed that there was no way of changing anything in it if it was \nsupposed to agree with the rest of physics. \n\nThe density of the universe didn’t want to come up any different. \n\nI didn’t discover any speculative part neither.\n\nI used only regular physics that I learned in school. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSo I started to study gravity seriously to find out whether \nI didn’t make some subtle error in my reasoning. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nI bought myself many books on general relativity including \nthe well over a thousand page book known as “MTW Bible” \nand started reading them. \n\nSoon I noticed that I had questions that books don’t answer, so \nI took a two-semester course on general relativity at Harvard \nUniversity, Cambridge, Massachsetts to be able to discuss those \nissues with the teaching professor. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nWhen the professor asked students to ask questions about things \nthey don’t understand I asked him a rather simple question about \nthe “particle horizon”. \n\nThe question was what are the velocities of galaxies behind the \n“particle horizon” with respect to someone who is in vicinity of \nthose galaxies but connected to the earth with a rigid rod (a thing \npossible only in imagination and therefore called “gedanken \nexperiment”). \n\nThe professor had been silent for a very long time, and when \nsilence became annoying he said that as long as he teaches \ngeneral relativity nobody asked him such a question and so he \nhad no idea what the answers might be. \n\nThat was strange because it seems to be the first obvious question \nto ask about the phenomenon of (alleged) expansion of the universe. \n\nThe professor also said that he was not a relativist but a particle \nphysicist and so he is not a good source of information on gravity.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSo I learned that general relativity is at least not that well \nunderstood by its teachers and asking them questions hasn’t much \nsense and can even embarras them on occasions. \n\nSo I continued to study without asking any more questions. \n\nAfter a while I found out that the constant in my differential \n(Newtonian) equation that determines the behavior of photons \nis called by cosmologists the cosmological constant of \nEinstein’s universe<\/em>. \n\nIt was rather an unusual event since my calculations were \npurely Newtonian. \n\nAs it was mentioned, at the time when I made those \ncalculations I had no idea what general relativity \nor “cosmological constant” is. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nBecause of this lucky coincidence about the constant in my \nequation my formula for the speed of the observed apparent \nexpansion of the universe simplified to H = c\/R<\/em> \nwhere c<\/em> is speed of light and R<\/em> is \nEinstein’s radius of the universe<\/em> or \nc\/sqrt(4pG<\/em>r)\nwhere G<\/em> is Newtonian gravitational constant and \nr is the density \nof the universe.\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nI sent my paper with this new form of the old result, to \nsome other scientific journals only to observe its consistent \nboomerang-like behavior. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThen, seeing that the scientific world may be not interested \nin finding out how my results look from the point of view of \ngeneral relativity, and not even whether the universe is \nreally expanding, I started thinking about it myself. \n\nI was also curious why gravity experts didn’t come upon \nsuch a simple solution as mine yet. \n\nWhat might have been the obstacle that prevented them form \ngetting it despite the whole sophistication of the machinery \nof differential geometry that they were using?\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nIt turned out that what I came upon through my Newtonian \ncalculations corresponded to mentioned earlier non symmetry \nof gik<\/sub> tensor of Einstein’s Field Equation. \n\nA new version, with an addition of the relation of the \nsolution to general relativity and a suggestion that the \ncosmologists must have overlooked the antisymmetric component \nof gik<\/sub> tensor, had the same boomerang-like qualities \nas all the previous versions. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nUnfortunately all the experts are convinced that gik<\/sub>\ntensor is symmetric, because its asymmetric part doesn’t show \nup in its quadratic form<\/em> (as if it were a good \nreason for something to not exist), and that whoever think \notherwise must be nuts and perhaps also an evil person who \njust wants to make all the brightest people in the business \nlook bad out of pure hatered toward them because of his mental \ninferiority. \n\nIt was actually what some protectors of expanding universe \nhypothesis told me.\n\nFor some reason no better arguments for the expansion of \nthe universe came to their minds. \n\nIt partly explained the boomerang-like behavior of the paper: \neditors might have believe in the same thing, because apparently \nit is how gravity science really works. \n\nWhich being a sculptor and not a scientist I didn’t know. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nLater I learned from Richard Feynman’s book<\/a> that it is exactly how “gravity \nphysicists” operate (quote from the book: “It is like a lot \nof worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over \neach other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that \nthe good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come \nto any more gravity conferences!”).\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nBut of course people who discuss science by attacking character \nof the discutants are clearly idiots and one can’t expect any \nrational arguments from them, so I kept trying to understand \nwhat is going on in science and why cosmologists didn’t \ndiscover the simple thing that I’ve seemed to discover.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nIn short, summing it all, the effect of dynamic friction<\/em> \ntransfers energy between moving bodies in the universe and so it has \nto produce some (negligible<\/em> according to astrophysicists, \nbut none<\/em> according to cosmologists whose math predicts \nexactly zero<\/em>) redshift. \n\nThat the effect is real is confirmed by its applicaiton in practice \nto accelerate space probes (the mentioned sling effect<\/em>) \nso there is no doubt that the effect is real.\n \nThe only problem with this effect is that it can’t be calculated \nin a conventional way (with application of Newtonian “attractive \nforce”, the only method the astrophysicists who are generally \nnot experts in differential geometry, know) since this method \ndoesn’t apply to objects that move with speed of ligt, which \nphotons unfortunately do.\n\nIt can be neither calculated by cosmologists, who are generally \napplied mathematicians and so they could use the differential \ngeometry without difficulty, but since they use symmetric \ngik<\/sub> tensor in their theory of spacetime they get \nexactly zero a priori, and consequently the non conservation of \nenergy, which then they tend to believe that it is a fact of life.\n\nIt of course suggests, at least to an amateur like me, that \nthe solution to the above deadlock is that the assumption \nof symmetry of spacetime gik<\/sub> tensor has to be dropped.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nDropping the assumption of symmetry of gik<\/sub> tensor shows \nimmediately that there is in the universe a purely relativistic \neffect that simulates dynamical friction<\/em> for photons.\n\nIt is a drag acting on each object that moves through the \nspace, and of course it is a feature of gik<\/sub> of \nEinstein’s Equation, which symmetric gik<\/sub>, assumed by \ncosmologists, doesn’t have. \n\nIt is enough to make the mathematics of the expanding \nuniverse invalid. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nWhen I learned that the cosmologists don’t want even to \nthink about the non symmetric gik<\/sub> tensor and prefer \nsimple solutions with creation of energy from nothing I tried \nto find out who else except me believed that \ngik<\/sub> tensor was non-symmetric. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nIt showed up that one of those nuts like me was Einstein \nhimself. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe fact that Einstein believed that gik<\/sub> \nmust be non-symmetric is not presented in any textbook on \ngravity. \n\nI learned about it accidentally from Einstein’s article \n On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation<\/em> published \nin April 1950 issue of Scientific American<\/em> when \ndirected to it by a Boston University physics professor. \n\nThe idea of non symmetric gik<\/sub> is there to verify that \nif I am crazy I am in a good company.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nTo not keep the facts about the universe only to myself \nand being aware that they can’t be published in scientific \njournals, I placed my results in Compuserve’s Astronomy \nLibrary (which unfortunately very few people visit). \n\nIt didn’t prompt anyone to discuss the paper. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nI thought also that my paper might be published in an internet news \ngroup that might be visited by astronomers and astrophysicists who \nmay be interested in some more rational reason for the cosmological \nredshift than the expansion of the universe. \n\nI sent to sci.astro.research group an ad that a paper with derivation \nof Hubble’s constant from first principles is available at no charge \nto anyone interested. \n\nThe moderator (a guy who prevents posting silly stuff in the group) \nkicked the ad out, advising me that there is a special news group for \npeople with nutty ideas (which unfortunately very few reasonable \npeople visit). \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nSo finally I decided to make my own web page just in case some \nastronomers or astrophysicists would try to find on the web some \nrational approach to the problem of the Hubble’s redshift. \n\nThat there was a need for it I have learned while reading on the \nweb an appeal of an astronomer to stop the nonsense with expending \nuniverse since it makes astronomers look like idiots. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nAnd so here it is: possibly the first relativistic explanation of \nHubble’s redshift ever, that respects the principle of conservation \nof energy and the principle that there is no greater velocity in \nthe universe than speed of light. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nIt also predicts (possibly accidentally) the “anomalous” drag that \nspace probes Pioneer 10 and 11 experience and that the universe \nshould actually not only look as it were expanding but as if the \nexpansion were accelerating and all numerical values needed for the \nverification of those predictions.\n\nThose both effects are already noticed in the real world and they \nare puzzling astrophysicists and cosmologists since neither of \nthose effects fits the cosmological theory with expansion \nof the universe and no cosmological constant (favored as far as \nI know by Prof. John Archibald Wheeler).\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe cosmologists liked to talk about this cosmological constant as \nthe “Einstein’s biggest blunder”, yet it seems that after \n“discovery” that the expansion of the universe is “accelerating”, \nwhich implies the need for the cosmological constant in Friedmann’s \nsolutions, they would have to apologize to Einstein.\n\nI’m almost embarrassed that those latest findings fit my conclusions \nfrom Einstein’s theory with this non symmetric gik<\/sub> tensor \nthat Einstein postulated already in 1950 but which was politely \nignored by cosmologists, so they didn’t have to talk about another \n“Einstein’s blunder”.\n\nIt reminds one, that Richard Feynman once said that so far in all \ndisputes between Einstein and other scientists the nature has always \nchosen Einstein’s side.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nI derived the results in such a simple way that a high school \nstudent who hasn’t neglected his mathematical education too much \nshouldn’t have trouble with understanding them. \n\nIt is because I accidentally utilized (not even knowing about it \nat the beginning) the relation between Newtonian potential \nand Einsteinian time dilation that translate into each other. \n\nThis relation together with the relation between time and space \ngave the simple formula for the Hubble’s constant with the speed \nof light and the radius of curvature of space only: \nH0<\/sub> = c\/R. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nBecause the main reason for Hubble’s redshift in my derivation is \nthe time dilation it made possible to derive Hubble’s constant in \na purely Newtonian way. \n\nIt is because (i) the Newtonian gravity is just the reflection of \nbehavior of the time in the universe and (ii) the curvature of \nspace is uniquely determined by the behavior of time \n(mathematically, through the fact that gik<\/sub> is a non \nRiemanian tensor, or so called “degenerate” tensor that says that \n“spacetime has zero volume”).\n\nSo the simplicity of my derivation is just caused by the simplicity \nof the Einsteinian physics of the effect. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nThe result is so pretty that even if it is wrong for some reason \nthere is a lot to be learned from it. \n\nError worth of learning about, being still a piece of art even if \nit is bad art<\/em> (see Theory of \nArt<\/a> by the same author for details on why bad art \nmay be still beautiful or elegant<\/em> piece of art). \n\nPiece that is fit for museum or a scientific paper, despite having \nno artistic or scientific value whatsoever (but it is a subject \ncomplex enough to need a separate page). \n\nThe value of it is then to be an example for what not to do which \nis as much important (if not more in many cases) to know as to know \nwhat to do. \n\nIt is as one of my art teachers said to his students: “I learn from \nyou a lot. \n\nIt is all about what not to do and why but then this knowledge makes \nme a much better teacher.” \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nAnother advantage of examining my solution is that if it is wrong \nthen it seems that the whole Einstein’s gravity must be wrong either \nand so it would open a way to discovering a new theory of gravity. \n\nHowever neither seems to be a viable option for the time being. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nOne more amazing thing worth to mention seems to be what I’ve \nlearned from discussions with various scientistsis.\n\nIt is that physicists in general, and astrophysicists in particular, \ndon’t understand gravity. \n\nIn particular they don’t understand completely the issue of \n“gravitational energy”. \n\nThey don’t know where the kinetic energy of a falling brick \nis coming from nor where this kinetic energy goes when the \nbrick is thrown up (I had to solve this issue by myself too, \nsince there was no one to ask, and it turned out to be \nalmost as simple as the issue of Hubble’e redshift.\n\nCurious readers may find it in The Einsteinian Gravity for Poets and \nScience Teachers”<\/a>).\n\nThis lack of any understanding of gravity refers also to those \nphysicists who teach gravity at various universities around \nthe world (hopefully no big secret has been uncovered at \nthis moment). \n\nThis lack of understanding is not what I think because \nI’m so smart. \n\nIt is what those physicist say. \n\nIt is even supported by a written opinion of late Richard Feynman \nwho was way smarter than me \n(Richard P. Feynman<\/a> \n“What Do You Care What Other People Think”). \n\nIt is really amazing that most of 20th and 21st (so far) century \nphysicists have had no idea why things fall on the earth. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\nNow, dear reader if you read this history up to this point, you may \nbecome curious also about the paper itself. \n\nSo just click here<\/a>. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to top<\/a> \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to home page<\/a> \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n To contact me and demand an explanation of my vicious attacks on honorable people click here<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"http:\/\/visit.geocities.com\/visit.gif?&r=https%3A\/\/www.google.com\/&b=Netscape%205.0%20%28Windows%29&s=1440x900&o=Win64&c=24&j=false&v=1.2\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n