As there is no "time-dilation" with cosmological expansion, it(cosmological expansion) can be considered as Newtonian.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gravitational collapse
- Thread starter arfa brane
- Start date
As there is no "time-dilation" with cosmological expansion, it(cosmological expansion) can be considered as Newtonian.
As there is no "time-dilation" with cosmological expansion, it(cosmological expansion) can be considered as Newtonian.
Few ideas but fixed. There is no cosmological expansion in Newtonian mechanics. Cosmological expansion is one of the GR predictions that differentiates it from Newtonian mechanics, like the advancement of Mercury perihelion, for example. Take a break from posting crank ideas and read a book, take a class.
Few ideas but fixed. There is no cosmological expansion in Newtonian mechanics. Cosmological expansion is one of the GR predictions that differentiates it from Newtonian mechanics, like the advancement of Mercury perihelion, for example. Take a break from posting crank ideas and read a book, take a class.
Do you know, initially Einstein was opposing this idea of "expanding universe"; but later on he agreed to it. See this link.
Do you know, initially Einstein was opposing this idea of "expanding universe"; but later on he agreed to it. See this link.
Being a very smart man , Einstein corrected his views.
More about that video (sorry I can't post images from it, so you will need to follow the link).
Near the end of the vid, both the Newtonian and Einsteinian spacetime 'slices' are rolled up. The caption notes that this transformation doesn't change any distances (it preserves them). It also preserves the right-angles between the coordinate 'lines' of both surfaces. So what?
Well, one detail is that if the cylinder is placed inside the truncated cone, they then intersect at one 'place' which is (isomorphic to) a circle = radius of the cylinder
Otherwise all the remaining circular sections through the cylinder (flat spacetime) don't intersect; if you want any vertical intersection, you can align a vertical coordinate-line on the cylinder with a vertical coordinate-line on the truncated cone, by 'skewing' the cylinder at an angle. To align more than a single line, you can't roll the cylinder along the surface of the cone, you have to lift it away and reposition it (with 'skew') each time. So you can't parallel transport any vectors from one slice to the other . . .
Near the end of the vid, both the Newtonian and Einsteinian spacetime 'slices' are rolled up. The caption notes that this transformation doesn't change any distances (it preserves them). It also preserves the right-angles between the coordinate 'lines' of both surfaces. So what?
Well, one detail is that if the cylinder is placed inside the truncated cone, they then intersect at one 'place' which is (isomorphic to) a circle = radius of the cylinder
Otherwise all the remaining circular sections through the cylinder (flat spacetime) don't intersect; if you want any vertical intersection, you can align a vertical coordinate-line on the cylinder with a vertical coordinate-line on the truncated cone, by 'skewing' the cylinder at an angle. To align more than a single line, you can't roll the cylinder along the surface of the cone, you have to lift it away and reposition it (with 'skew') each time. So you can't parallel transport any vectors from one slice to the other . . .
Being a very smart man , Einstein corrected his views.
It is not exactly Einstein's smartness but Hubble's discovery, which changed Einstein's view about expanding universe.
Last edited:
It is not exactly Einstein's smartness but Hubble's discovery, which changed Einstein's view about expanding universe.
The point is that Einstein was smart and he changed his point of view. The same cannot be said about the cranks populating this forum.
The point is that Einstein was smart and he changed his point of view. The same cannot be said about the cranks populating this forum.
So, you dont want to consider Hubble's discovery.
So, you dont want to consider Hubble's discovery.
What gives you this bright idea?
What gives you this bright idea?
See this quote of Einstein from my earlier link.
"New observations by Hubble and Humason … concerning the redshift of light in distant nebulae make the presumptions near that the general structure of the Universe is not static."
—Einstein
See this quote of Einstein from my earlier link.
"New observations by Hubble and Humason … concerning the redshift of light in distant nebulae make the presumptions near that the general structure of the Universe is not static."
—Einstein
Very good, so, I'll ask you again: what gives you the bright idea that I disagree with the fact that Einstein did not consider with Hubble's discovery in changing his position relative to the expanding universe?
Very good, so, I'll ask you again: what gives you the bright idea that I disagree with the fact that Einstein did not consider with Hubble's discovery in changing his position relative to the expanding universe?
Einstein developed his GR long before Hubble's discovery. GR predicts expanding universe. But Einstein did not accept this fact of expanding universe till Hubble's discovery, though he(Einstein) developed his GR long before.
Einstein developed his GR long before Hubble's discovery. GR predicts expanding universe. But Einstein did not accept this fact of expanding universe till Hubble's discovery, though he(Einstein) developed his GR long before.
Actually, you got it wrong (like most everything you do). The original EFEs predicted cosmological expansion. Einstein was uncomfortable with the idea and added a constant (the cosmological constant) to the equations in order to counter the expansion effect. Later on, he realized his error and reverted to the ORIGINAL EFEs.
Actually, you got it wrong (like most everything you do). The original EFEs predicted cosmological expansion. Einstein was uncomfortable with the idea and added a constant (the cosmological constant) to the equations in order to counter the expansion effect. Later on, he realized his error and reverted to the ORIGINAL EFEs.
Again you are wrong. It is only Hubble's discovery which changed Einstein's idea of "static universe". See this NASA site.
Again you are wrong. It is only Hubble's discovery which changed Einstein's idea of "static universe". See this NASA site.
From the very site: "In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract."
Give it a rest, crank.
Ok, well obviously this thread is really about what Einstein said, when he said it, and what he meant.
So my 10c worth is: he realised that in order for the equations to "predict a static universe", he had to add something to counteract the effect of gravity, so he assumed spacetime wasn't expanding (or it didn't occur to him), and that gravity would then imply all the matter and energy attracting together (i.e. gravitational collapse), unless he added a term to counteract it.
Ed: that's also pretty much what Wikipedia says (although they could of course be misquoting the man).
So my 10c worth is: he realised that in order for the equations to "predict a static universe", he had to add something to counteract the effect of gravity, so he assumed spacetime wasn't expanding (or it didn't occur to him), and that gravity would then imply all the matter and energy attracting together (i.e. gravitational collapse), unless he added a term to counteract it.
Ed: that's also pretty much what Wikipedia says (although they could of course be misquoting the man).
Last edited:
From the very site: "In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract."
Give it a rest, crank.
" Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (Λ), as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological constant term as his "greatest mistake". "
Read the above quote from NASA site i linked earlier and answer the following questions.
Q1) Einstein developed GR. GR predicts universe is either expanding or contracting. WHY Einstein still thought that the universe is static(though it was his mistake)?
Q2) How Einstein realized his mistake that the universe is not static?
" Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion".
Give it a rest , crank. I bolded the part that contradicts your claims.
BTW, GR was introduced by Einstein in 1916 , no $$\Lambda$$.
$$\Lambda$$ was introduced by Einstein in 1917, as an addition to his EFE's.
$$\Lambda$$ was retracted by Einstein in 1922 and was resurrected just recently by Saul Perlmutter.
Give it a rest , crank. I bolded the part that contradicts your claims.
But that was Einstein's mistake and later on he regretted it.
But that was Einstein's mistake and later on he regretted it.
Well, crackpot, this was your angle all along, to "prove that Einstein was wrong".
Turns out that he was right after all: $$\Lambda$$ was retracted by Einstein in 1922 and was resurrected just recently by Saul Perlmutter.