We almost certainly live in a static universe.

[Michael]

Oh jolly good, so you are a fan of the Cosmological Constant now - you just want it to have an impossibly precise value.

Pots and kettles. If you can claim to have your value for your non-zero constant pinned down to within a few percentage points, why would you criticize anyone else for doing exactly what you're already doing? That's not even logical, let alone logically consistent, in fact it's down right hypocritical.

So we can forget about angular momentum saving the static universe, can't we?

Not really. There certainly are EM influences to consider as well, and I'm willing to entertain them if required, but I have no reason to believe that they have to play a *huge* role in the stabilization process. Momentum alone seems to work pretty well to explain a stable universe up to and including the size of superclusters, and I have no evidence that momentum somehow goes away beyond the scale of superclusters.

I am willing to introduce a non-zero constant *if necessary*, but I can't even be certain it's necessary yet, and I certainly have no evidence that it has to be a particular huge number the way it is in *your* belief system, where it makes up the vast majority of your theory!

Admittedly Peratt was able to achieve galaxy type structures from EM influences alone, so even if EM fields have a larger influence than I imagine, it's still well within the realm of possibility.

You truly are a fit companion for Justatruthseeker.

Thanks.

 

[lesliedellow]

It does give us a static/stable galaxy however. You still haven't explained your "about face" as it relates to momentum as it applies to something larger than a supercluster. Everything up to and including superclusters remains stable without evoking anything more than momentum, yet for some inexplicable reason, you simply "assume' everything somehow works differently beyond the size of superclusters. Why?

You were wrong, so stop trying to squirm out of it. You claimed that the universe is static, and it can't be.

 

[lesliedellow]

Pots and kettles. If you can claim to have your value for your non-zero constant pinned down to within a few percentage points, why would you criticize anyone else for doing exactly what you're already doing? That's not even logical, let alone logically consistent, in fact it's down right hypocritical.

Any old value for the cosmological constant would do me. In fact, if the expansion of the universe wasn't accelerating, I could do without it all together. You are the one who needs a cosmological constant with a value which is precise in the extreme, because you are the one trying to achieve the equivalent of balancing a pencil on its point.

 

[Michael]

You were wrong, so stop trying to squirm out of it. You claimed that the universe is static, and it can't be.

How could you possibly claim I'm wrong when Einstein himself specifically added that non-zero constant into GR so that it *does* support a static universe? You know more about GR than Einstein now?

 

[lesliedellow]

How could you possibly claim I'm wrong when Einstein himself specifically added that non-zero constant into GR so that it *does* support a static universe? You know more about GR than Einstein now?

Einstein took it out again, and he would have taken it out even without Hubble's observations. It was an ugly "fix" motivated by philosophy, rather than science, and it wasn't viable.

 

[Michael]

Any old value for the cosmological constant would do me.

And a wide range of constants might work for me too. I'm actually fine with an expanding universe scenario in fact. I just lack belief it would be related to "space expansion".

In fact, if the expansion of the universe wasn't accelerating, I could do without it all together.

Except I'm not sure your BAO number would work properly anymore. You certainly can't pick any old number for exotic matter, that's for darn sure. You seem to have a blatant double standard as it relates to balancing on the razors edge arguments.

You are the one who needs a cosmological constant with a value which is precise in the extreme, because you are the one trying to achieve the equivalent of balancing a pencil on its point.

You've never demonstrated that anything is balanced on a pencil point. You keep *claiming* that, but you've never provided a shred of evidence to support that claim.

IMO the universe is going to seek a state of organization, just as our bodies achieve a state of organization, and it's going to "function" based on specific organizational processes.

You're basically insisting that GR cannot be used to support a static universe, whereas Einstein claimed the exact opposite. Whom shall I believe and why? Your pencil argument is just "made up" based on your unwillingness to consider the role of electrical current in space.

 

[Michael]

Einstein took it out again, and he would have taken it out even without Hubble's observations. It was an ugly "fix" motivated by philosophy, rather than science, and it wasn't viable.

So you decided to dust off and use his ugly fix to put an ugly fix on your own theory?

Come on. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're not even using that non-zero constant in the same way as Einstein proposed, so your fix is even uglier than his!

It's simply irrational to believe that gravity is the *only* force of nature that must be considered in a universe full of plasma which is easily moved by EM fields. A non-zero constant allows one to add additional influence to the processes of spacetime. If you can add *hypothetical* influences, I can certainly add *empirical* influences like EM fields in that non-zero constant.

 

[lesliedellow]

And a wide range of constants might work for me too. I'm actually fine with an expanding universe scenario in fact.

You are squirming again. An expanding universe is not a static universe.

 

[Michael]

FYI.....

Your argument about anything being balanced on a pencil point is apparently based on your own strawman argument that somehow insists that galaxy superclusters are not in motion. Any model involving supercluster *motion* destroys your argument instantly. The Earth's orbit isn't balanced on the point of pencil, it's just in the right orbit to remain stable over time because it achieved a stable orbit sometime in the past, and objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

It would work *no differently* at the larger scales.

 

[lesliedellow]

So you decided to dust off and use his ugly fix to put an ugly fix on your own theory?

Einstein's attempt to obtain a static universe by introducing the cosmological constant wasn't viable because of the pencil balanced on its point analogy.

The rol the cosmological constant plays in present day cosmology isn't subject to the same objection.

 

[Michael]

You are squirming again. An expanding universe is not a static universe.

No, but it would be no skin off my nose if it were expanding so I'm not stuck with any specific number. Simply adding more energy to the system is likely to simply result in stronger Birkeland currents between objects and faster objects in space, and not necessarily cause an expansion process. You're making *huge* assumptions about the universe which seem to exclude the whole concept of electrical currents in space.

 

[Michael]

Einstein's attempt to obtain a static universe by introducing the cosmological constant wasn't viable because of the pencil balanced on its point analogy.

False. That's your own personal bias speaking, not fact.

The rol the cosmological constant plays in present day cosmology isn't subject to the same objection.

Sure it is, in fact it's subject to additional objections related your additional claims about 'space expansion", inflation and dark energy, none of which have ever been shown to have any tangible effect on mass in a lab.

On the other hand EM fields are *known* to have tangible effects on plasma and the universe is full of plasma that is organized in massive Birkeland currents. We can even experience the effects of EM fields on plasma here inside our own solar system in the form of solar wind.

 

[lesliedellow]

FYI.....

Your argument about anything being balanced on a pencil point is apparently based on your own strawman argument that somehow insists that galaxy superclusters are not in motion. Any model involving supercluster *motion* destroys your argument instantly. The Earth's orbit isn't balanced on the point of pencil, it's just in the right orbit to remain stable over time because it achieved a stable orbit sometime in the past, and objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

It would work *no differently* at the larger scales.

[/QUOTE]

I said nothing about galaxies not orbiting a centre of mass. I did say that still wouldn't get you a static universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

False. That's your own personal bias speaking, not fact.

That is just not true, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that you haven't got a clue about the role which the cosmological constant plays in cosmology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're basically insisting that GR cannot be used to support a static universe, whereas Einstein claimed the exact opposite. Whom shall I believe and why?

Einstein's equations predict an expanding universe. Einstein added the CC to compensate because he assumed the universe was static. He later removed it, calling it his 'greatest blunder' because he realised he'd let an unjustified assumption influence his physics.

 

[Michael]

That is just not true, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that you haven't got a clue about the role which the cosmological constant plays in cosmology.

I know the role that the non-zero constant plays in LCDM *and* I know the role that it plays in EU/PC theory, and they are not the same role. You keep trying to use LCMD theory to describe EU/PC theory, and it just doesn't work like that in EU/PC theory.

Adding electricity to gravity ends up generating Birkeland currents, induction, and all sorts of influences that lead to filamentary structures in space, not "expansion".

You seem to be fixated on *your* model where galaxy clusters are like "mini, stationary, non-moving GR islands" in the middle of a "space expansion" process. That's not at *all* what I'm proposing however and you therefore cannot use *your* model to attempt to falsify mine!

 

[Michael]

Einstein's equations predict an expanding universe.

That's not actually the case. GR with a zero constant predicts either an expanding or a contracting universe. GR theory with a zero constant however also describes the movements of our solar system and our galaxy and galaxy cluster just perfectly, and it doesn't necessarily have to be expanding, nor contracting.

It gets "fuzzier" at the largest scales, and longest timelines, particularly in a finite universe, but there's no guarantee that we even live in a finite universe to start with.

Einstein added the CC to compensate because he assumed the universe was static.

That is correct. He was essentially assuming that the universe was 'finite', and that it would therefore either expand or contract over the whole of eternity if nothing other than gravity played a role in the layout of all matter.

He later removed it, calling it his 'greatest blunder' because he realised he'd let an unjustified assumption influence his physics.

When the consensus shifted toward an expanding universe he simply realized that it wasn't necessary to have a non-zero constant to describe an expanding (or contracting) finite universe. It just became unnecessary at that point.

LCMD relies upon the assumption that a non-zero constant wasn't really his greatest blunder, but rather it was his greatest insight, and that gravity may not be the only influence in the layout of mass in the universe.

All that constant would represent in EU theory is current flow and magnetic fields. Increasing the constant would end up producing greater current and stronger fields, but it wouldn't necessarily result in either expansion or contraction.

As long as one allows for superclusters to remain in motion, it's not a given that a lot of external influence is even necessary to create a "balanced" universe, particularly in an *infinite* static universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

You seem to be fixated on *your* model where galaxy clusters are like "mini, stationary, non-moving GR islands"

Excuse me, but you are the one trying to argue that the universe is static.

 

[Michael]

As bast as I can tell Leslie, your pencil point argument is based on your own beliefs about superclusters being akin to stationary mini GR islands inside of an expanding space universe.

Galaxy superclusters are simply objects which are embedded in massive Birkeland currents that wire the whole universe together in EU/PC theory. Superclusters are moving with the currents and they go places in EU/PC theory. They're not stationary islands in EU/PC theory.

 

[Michael]

Excuse me, but you are the one trying to argue that the universe is static.

It's static in the sense that it's not expanding or contracting, but it's *all in motion* in EU/PC theory. I's not 'stationary', just "static".