This way we might discuss for a month all our illusions instead of physics. And then after a month the thread gets closed by moderators and we don't even get to the main problem, which is whether it is right to give up the principle of conservation of energy that prevents the expansion of the universe. Then we might stay with the illusion of expansion not even knowing whether it is only an illusion or real physics, since we had no time to discuss it.

So my advice is to cut the c... and start discussing the main problem first. The main problem being why do we think that the universe is expanding while it requires only 2.3 times bigger density than (apparently) observed now, to see the expansion as illusion.

As I've already explained in my paper, the explanation of phenomenon of expansion might be the old principle of conservation of energy. And the conservation of energy is built into the Einsteinian gravitation (through the vanishing divergence of stress-energy tensor). So the physics and math might be already there.

When did the astronomers gave up the conservation of energy and was it even discussed by them? I know one mathematical physicists and not even an astronomer, John Baez, who maintains that mathematical physicists discussed it between themselves, and they are sure that energy is not concerved in gravitation but can't discuss it again since it is against the rules to discuss the same subject twice. Well, I didn't see this discussion and I have a suspicion that not only math has to be right but also the physics, and I can't imagine how physics in this case is going to be right.

That's why I'm asking about the physics and if astronomers discussed the issue between themselves as well, please tell me how they came to the conclusion that the energy is not conserved.

Sending me to the literature won't do since I've already know the theory behind the expansion and I don't believe it I'v seen much more c... in it than I care to talk about without being asked about it. So please just ask me about things that indicate the non conservation of energy in gravitation or expansion of the universe (which one comes form another) so I can respond to the questions and I can ask questions as well. In short, I propose to discuss the non conservation of energyagain even if it was alrady discussed and astronomers are convinced that there is no such thing.

I don't se any place except cosmology done by mathematicians (and therefore based on assumptions not on the observations) where the energy is not conserved (e.g. the assumption of globally curved spacetime which has yet to be proved since it is not even observed, but according to Noether theorem prevents energy from being conserved). Despite that conservation of energy is built into gavitation automatically and so the spacetime must be globally flat. Despite that J. A. Wheeler imagines it as "curved" (while only the space is curved) to fit his assumption of exactly zero cosmological constant (which I hope even the astronomers don't take seriously any more).

In my private opinion finding the missing 60% od the universe might be much simpler project than proving the global non conservation of energy so why don't we try the simple things first. We are obliged to do it also by the Occam's principle. Until we can prove that Occam's principle doesn't work in this case.