More detailed explanation of the "3 errors" by JimJast :)
After writing to you I felt being too brief with my descriptions so I'd appreciate if you asked me about desriptions of errors, with which you don't agree.
- It is not my theory: I call it "Einsteinian theory" since formally it is an extension of "Einstein's theory". If you knew Einstein's theory you would know how much of it is Einstein's (over 90%) and how much is mine (possibly less than 10%). I had an advantage over Einstein knowing his theory and thinking about it for many years before modifying it to make it perfect. Despite that I discovered a long time ago that the universe is not expanding, what he knew also, as a high school kid is able to discover it too (that little math is needed to prove it) it is just not worked on for certain reasons, I manged only recently to eliminate "Einstein's cosmological constant" from his "field equation". The "cosmological constant" turned out to be unnecessary there, which Einstein probably didn't know calling it once "the biggest blunder of my life".
- You don't use scientific method: was about the fact that scientific method is simple proving with negative experiments that something "never" happens which we then consider "impossible" to happen. On occasions we prove also that something is possible but this is not "scientific" part of it. It is only "technological" part of it and that's why techology and science progress together. "Scientific" part is only in dispresing superstitions and prejudieses about the real world. This is a "sure" knowledge. Since we can't prove negative we are doomed to progress in science through learning that we can't somethnig rather than we can. Though the knowledge that we can is also handy but every time something happens we can't be sure it happens the next time around (and sometimes it doesn't :). But if somehting never happens in 1,000,000,000,000 cases we may be "pretty sure" it doesno't happen the next time around neither and we start to believe that it is a "law of physics" though we can be always surprised that some "law of physics" gets broken. It shows how important it is to experimant in science. And how sure we can be that there are niether Santas nor gods and that all of them are human inventions. It of course is not everything about science and technology but enough to tell you why our contemporary science is not controlled by "scientific method". It is because of cosmology. In all other sciences scientific method is observed, in some stricter than in others, but the cosmology is a special case since so many people have special interest in manipulating it. Livelihoods of whole social classes depend on them. And it happened in cosmology that the rules of scientific method are delibertry broken. For various reasons miracles are allowed in cosmology and since they are not allowed in other sciences the scientific method is not extanded to cosmology. Since I happen to work in this, I happen to know the mechansms that were used to allow the creation of universe and following it its constant expansion. Feynman's rant against gravity physicists is a proof that the cosmology is excluded from physics. And that's why I think that my PhD will be never allowed, especially in a country with 97% of population of believers.
- My lack of peers: you may deduce from all the above.
You may not believe that such things happen in science but if you sent me your e-mail address I may tell you more details without necessity of agitating folks who don't care about such boring stuff.
Jesus Christ, Jast, is there any way to keep you from spreading this stuff like a cancer all over the damn wiki?
The best way is not to ask me for explanations because I have an Aspergers Syndrom (I take any question seriously which works only when you're are interested in answers)