Einstein was wrong 1

 Some abstracts
                   Not long ago the Nobel prize physics was awarded for research on accelerated expansion of the universe. This was concluded from redshift observed at supernovae Ia with hypothesis that the general theory of relativity is correct. That however is not so as Vasily Yanchilin shows in his book The Quantum Theory of Gravity (2003).
Below some argumentation from it. If correct, which is likely, that prize should be withdrawn.
The Russian scientist gives in his book excellent explanation and proposes to interprete gravity as a pure quantum mechanical process. Thus providing qualitative analysis of the character of gravity he may be awarded with the Nobel prize.
The british Royal Astronomical Society presumably does not know about the book for there they stick to the theory of a hundred years ago. The same in America on universities which claim to present excellent education. Now a qualitative interpretation of gravity exists, based on the hypothesis that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty: In the half of a particle nearest to mass then there will be less quantum mechanical transitions towards the farthest half than the other way. Net result is displacement of the particle in the direction of the external mass.
A new formula for an interval is derived by Yanchilin from wave theory and black holes become inexistant. In both the general theory of relativity and in the new one an interval gets smaller near mass. According the gtr this means that when a second passes far from mass only parts of a second will tick away near mass. However everybody agrees that the unit of length becomes smaller near mass and distances bigger. This results in smaller atoms and more energy for electrons which will radiate with higher frequency. Time is bound to physical processes and measured with frequencies. So the second is faster near mass and the gtr is wrong (Yanchilin).
Consider a photon according the principle of least action: It tries to pass mass with as big steps (oscillations with low frequency) as possible and a minimum of these. That's why it follows a parabolic route around mass and there less time on its own watch passes.
In the 1919 experiment potential energy changed not only in kinetic energy but also there was change in internal energy according E=m.c quadrat. Then it does not proof validity of the gtr.
Light curves towards mass and light will be retarded by the mass of the universe when going outwards, unless the universe is infinite, which does not agree with a Big Bang. Thus in the past c was bigger and becomes zero at the edge of the universe, where everything looses speed, direction and gets decomposed, turns into a complete quantum mechancial state.
Bigger c in the past means correction of the supernova Ia standard and accellerated expansion of the universe disappears.
Read on page 222 of the book what Vasily Yanchilin thinks about negative energy. Also inflation and the cosmological constant become phantasy. However due to (1-x)(1+x) equals 1 up to x quadrat the gtr in terrestial conditions (only small variations occur here) gives often results in agreement with the new better theory. When c changes also the Planck (still called the constant of Planck in the book) changes; maths in the book seem to be OK, except for unimportant misprints.
The book offers the best approach to understanding the universe but of course there are unresolved problems like the discrepancy of extremely lowered frequency in back ground radiation and that of first stellar systems. Also attention is needed for increase of effective mass in speedy satelites eventually influencing ticking of atomic clocks. And do muons from cosmic radiation have such enormous energy that considered as waves they will have very high frequency, which translates in many, many small "steps" (oscillations) thus that the observer notices much time to pass when on the muon's watch only a fraction of time passes?