Predictions in science, especially physics, need to be detailed. After all, the devil is in the details. Its easy to come up with a 10 sentence 'explanation' for something which is off the top of your head and might seem superficially viable. Anyone can do that. The difficult part is being able to make precise predictions. I've already given you examples, a ball thrown upwards will come down but its important to know where and when. Both Newton and Einstein predict the precession of Mercury but only Einstein gets it right.
Yes, they can be used to make precise predictions. And the fact they are phrased mathematically doesn't mean they don't have any physical grounding. The derivation of the Einstein field equations can be done considering the dynamics of a fluid. The FRW metric is obtained from the field equations by noting that the universe has both isotropy (looks the same in all directions) and homogeneity (looks the same from any vantage point). These two very simple physical conditions lead to the FRW metric.
No, it can include the CC but it is not required. You should look up the models before making proclaimations about them.
You seem to really be failing to grasp how science works. Science is about correcting previous mistakes. You keep saying about how Einstein 'corrected' his mistake, his 'blunder', yet now you're telling us
not to correct
that mistake, despite the fact we have decades of evidence since Einstein's death which point to the non-zero value of the cosmological constant. Yes, Einstein was wrong about the cosmological constant, he was wrong about a lot of things. His views on general relativity are not gospel, there is no "We must follow Einstein's words", which making your comparisions with religion all the more flawed because we're
not canonising someone, someone you are canonising! The 'golden age' of general relativities was the 60s and 70s, after Einstein's death. He contributed little to GR after the early 30s.
I've asked you several times and despite you saying you'll answer any question you refuse to explain how it is you think you know more about the history and development of general relativity than any actual physicist. You don't even know high school physics yet you seem to think your
guesses about how professors, both mathematicians and physicists, in science have been working are right.
I have been in both a maths and a physics department. I've worked on both quantum field theory and general relativity. I know people on both sides of this imaginary fence you think exists between maths and physics. I understand both the details and the history and I can categorically tell you your take on things is
false.
Einstein had a PhD in physics. He worked in a physics department. Why would he need his wife to ask around?
If all you can do is simple
invent stories to tell yourself and to try and convince others then you're demonstrating you aren't interested in honest discussion.
Yes, your extensive experience in fixing fridges and inability to understand high school physics makes you 'a true scientist'.
Before I thought you were a bit naive, that you'd just not understood the things you'd read. Then it became clear you are dishonest, as you haven't even tried to find out the information you ask others to provide. Now you're showing you're just delusional, thinking you're 'a true scientist' when you have no knowledge, no experience, no understanding, no honesty and no grasp of
anything relevant to your claims and you resort to simply making up stories about Einstein's wife. I mean, come on, do you think you'll really convince anyone who knows a jot of GR's history or basic science you're anything other than dishonest?
You can if the evidence is there and its a tested working description of the relevant phenomena. Without something like the cosmological constant gravity is actually the only force which
doesn't have a repulsive component to it. Electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions can be repulsive as well as attractive. For the technically minded (since other people other than you will read this post and some of them aren't detached from reality) its because they are all associated to vector fields. In quantum field theory its possible to show that the effective interactions of vector fields can be repulsive while scalars and spin-2 fields (the graviton is spin-2) must be attractive only. I can provide a book and page reference if anyone is interested, but obviously you aren't. You're too dishonest to even try Google or Wikipedia before making claims.
The simple and evident fact of the matter is you're not.
You haven't yet provided a model. You've provided a wordy explanation.
You can taste your model? A model is an abstract concept whose structure we associate to things in the real world. You can't feel or taste or see Newton's model of gravity or Einstein's general relativity. You can feel and (if you want) taste the things they describe, ie the objects which gravity acts on. Since you clearly don't understand I'll explain it to you....
A mathematical model is an abstract formal construct with clearly stated rules and formalism. Using known results in mathematics various parts of said model can be developed and 'conclusions' arrived at. A simple example would be that if $$\ddot{x}(t) = -g_{0}$$, where $$g_{0}$$ is a constant then $$x(t) = A + Bt - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}$$ for A,B constants. This is pure mathematical abstraction presently. To turn it into a physical model you have to associate physical things with the mathematical objects in your model. If you associate the height of something above the ground with x(t) and $$-g_{0}$$ with the acceleration objects feel when dropped from a height then $$x(t) = A + Bt - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}$$ is now a simple model for the motion of objects near the Earth's surface as they move under gravity's effects. Suppose you want to know how long it takes a ball dropped from a height of 2 metres to hit the ground. The initial height is 2 so A=2 and the initial speed of 0 so B=0. Thus $$x(t) = 2 - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}$$. The ground is at height 0 so you want to solve $$x(t) = 0$$. Thus you solve $$0 = 2 - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}$$ for positive time to get $$t = \sqrt{\frac{4}{g}}}$$. The stronger gravity the larger g and the quicker the ball hits the ground. For Earth g is about 10 so it'll hit the ground in $$t = \sqrt{0.4} = 0.63$$ seconds. Go on, try it.
But its better than that! What if NASA wants to land a probe on Mars and they use inflating airbags to cushion the probe landing (which they have done, look up the Pathfinder mission), so they need to know how things fall near the Martian surface. Then you just put in the Martian value for $$g_{0}$$ and you get the time taken for an object to fall from 2 metres on Mars! But what if you don't want to do 2 metres but 10? Then you solve $$0 = 10 - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}$$ and get $$t = \sqrt{\frac{20}{g_{0}}}$$. You can even include the fact the object might not be initially at rest by having B non-zero, you just solve $$0 = A+Bt - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}$$ for initial height A and initial velocity B. One model does it all and since it applies to all those different conditions we can test it for a lot of different cases and then use it to build machines based on said understanding.
The fact its been phrased mathematically means you can correctly apply it to different situations. Using maths you can be sure that your result is the logical conclusion of your starting assumptions, just as the FRW metric is the logical conclusion of assuming the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. There's no room for a mathematician just throwing in something he likes on a whim, as it's got to follow from the initial postulates and the implications will be tested. Einstein's original derivation of the CC was via mathematics, which shows its not impossible for the universe to be filled with a background energy, provided it behaves in a certain way. An important principle in science is the totalitarian principle, if you can't rule it out then you should consider it. Einstein thought observations ruled it out and called it a blunder. Now, 50+ years after his death observations say it isn't ruled out.
You simply do not know how the CC fits into cosmological models so your ignorant assertions are just that,
ignorant.
No, it flies in the face of our understanding in 1930, just as our understanding in 1930 flew in the face of our understanding of 1800, which flew in the face of our understanding in 800, which flew.... you get the picture. Yes, some things science says now contradict what science used to say but that's the power of science, it is self correcting. You whine about dogmatic religious attachment in the scientific community yet you're clinging to the science of 1930, even in the face of evidence its incorrect.
Why should you be the yardstick by which worth is measured? You don't do science, you have no use for any quantitative models, correct or otherwise. Hell, it would appear a high school education in science is worthless to you, as you clearly don't have one and thus make no use of it.
A rose by any other name....
That's a quote from Shakespeare by the way, as I am not going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are aware of that.
Think about what you just said. You said GR predicts the BB cosmological model as impossible, yet every single person whose working on cosmology is familiar with basic GR, they use it everyday. Not only that but there's just as many relativity researchers working in other areas of physics. And yet, despite knowing about GR, none of them have reached the conclusion you have, that it contradicts the big bang model. What would a reasonable person conclude? Would they conclude it means they don't contradict one another or that there's some giant conspiracy covering it up, despite it being basic undergrad stuff we're talking about.
Inflation was put forth to explain why the universe is so thermally homogeneous while dealing with the issue of having to have expansion such that the universe
didn't collapse back into a black hole. There's a great deal of work considering such kinds of 'universes'. If you want a pop science explanation Penrose talks about it in 'Road To Reality'. A more technical discussion can be found in a paper by Susskind on such things. See
here and
here. The fact is it is not automatic such a concentration of matter would automatically become a black hole. If you'd done a bit of reading
before declaring you understand this stuff then you might have known this already.
Like I've said, it doesn't say good things about your honesty if you're daft enough to lie about physics on a physics forum, some members of which have working understanding of the material you lie about. Its like smearing yourself in raw meet, jumping into a tank of sharks and being surprised when you get bitten.
A ball kicked just right to go up a hill and only
just get over it will slow down as it goes up the slope and then speed up after it gets over the top. The rate of expansion of the universe can be viewed in a similar manner. In fact you can model the dynamical field associated to the expansion in just that manner.
Putting forth new things is what science is about. If we couldn't suggest new things we'd never move forward.
No, its fine because the experiments and observations done to test the implications of the mathematics have validated the implications and thus the notion of a cosmological constant. You constantly demonstrate you think this is all just done on the whim of mathematicians and that no physical considerations are made. That's flat out wrong, it was physical observations which prompted people to look at the cosmological constant again.
And you know this how? Did the last fridge you fixed lead you to such a conclusion or are you just making things up in order to avoid facing up to the fact you don't understand science? You said you'd answer any question so answer that one, answer why you think you're in any position to know what expansion does or what poor science is or isn't, given your zero experience, knowledge and understanding of anything relevant, model or observation.