On 3/31/2025 8:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2025 at 6:07:49 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Thanks for that data dump. When E was contemplating the CC, he
knew that gravity was attractive and NOT the cause of the
expansion implied for some values of the CC. Why then would he
think that by assuming a repulsive CC which eliminated gravity,
would imply a steady-state universe? AG
THINK, AG! When Einstein wrote is first cosmology paper base on
GR, he thought the universe was (1) Small: consisting of only the
Milky Way and some "nebula"
No shit. Is that what E thought? I never heard that before! AG
It wasn't that he made it up. He asked astronomers and that was the
consensus at the time.
and (2) Static: having always existed just as seen at the time.
No shit2. AG
The way to fit this with his GR models was to assume the CC had
exactly the value needed to counter the gravitational attraction
so that the universe could be infinitely old in this same state.
The only person here who isn't THINKING clearly is YOU! If gravity
isn't causing the expansion when presumably the CC is set to zero,
Gravity is always attractive, i.e. toward contraction. The CC is also a
force and can be positive or negative. Both gravity and the CC are
*/forces/* not velocities and not displacements. So any value of CC is
consistent with contraction or expansion.
Brent
why would eliminating it with some appropriate value of the CC, result
in a steady-state universe? IOW, gravity is irrelevant to why the
universe is expanding, and E knew this. So why would eliminating
gravity have any effect on causing a static universe, the one E
believed existed before Hubble proved otherwise? AG//
When Hubble discovered the universe was expanding then the
universe was finitely old and was dynamic. If the matter of the
universe started off as from explosion the matter could be just
coasting outward and no CC was needed. The universe was expanding
due to an initial impetus and coasting with just enough energy to
asymptotically approach zero expansion rate at infinite time. The
LambdaCDM model with CC=0 seemed to fit the data up until about 1990.
Indeed. I know this story. AG
The Einstein's GR equations for these two scenarios were exactly
the same. Only the boundary conditions were different.
Which two scenarios are you referring to? AG
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33251ee8-41ed-4046-86a8-5ddbde512e79n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33251ee8-41ed-4046-86a8-5ddbde512e79n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0e7e1a75-3784-4643-a9fb-558d730bc54b%40gmail.com.
