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" and (2) Static: having always existed just as seen at the time. 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. 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. The Einstein's GR equations for these two scenarios were exactly the same. Only the boundary conditions were different. Brent *If the universe has no boundary, then one cannot determine what the CC could be, since such a calculation requires a boundary. And if different assumed values of the CC give different evolutions of the universe, I don't see that the CC has any relationship to gravity. AG * -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4e2f9be0-837d-42d8-ad9d-ca155a887ea9n%40googlegroups.com.
