RP, I have read all your posts, and the entire many posts on the cosmological constant. I agree, much of what you have written, is as how I also see one interpretation of Einstein's thinking. You have probably described most of it better than anyone before you, including Einstein himself, yet you have offered little new, to someone like myself, who long ago figured out Einstein's thinking, most the same as you. However, there are two or more ways to interpret the cc{cosmological constant}. One is as you have done, I think, as you offer a rather confused substantive position of the velocity of light, staying constant, and not in other areas. I'll take it your model means constant light velocity, as cc. Now, the other way to explain an expanding universe is with a changing light speed, from past to today, which also allows for gravity, and all the other universal anomallies, known to exist. By having light moving faster 13.7 years ago, at the time of the real big bang, (as opposed to your model's today and yesterday, but I see nowhere else in your model, for real matter to come into the picture, except through big-bangs, small-bangs, stars, singularities, black-holes, etc.,) the universe could have also pushed the space and matter apart at many times faster rates, that we still happen to witness at great distances, then slowed to today's speeds, not speed, but
speeds. There is no solid cosmological ground, for you to stand on, and say the cc is the correct model, as everyone knows there is no such measurable solid cosmological ground. Therefore, your model, as presented, though quite thoroughly, and with few mistakes, and excellent extensions, as to quantum field mechanics, is still only one model, among others, that are all viable. I think only figuring out the fundamental substance, and true mass values, will resolve the differences between the many possible, and the real actual model.
BTW, stating gravity is the 4th dimension, is a rather moot point, since this has been the case since 1905, and close to the case since Newton. Now, on the other hand, if you explain how the zero-mass/mass of fundamental substance, becomes gravity, totally mechanically, and technically mathematically accurately, accounting for transitions from quantum mechanics' false zero mass, to Einstein/Newtons real solid mass, of FS{fundamental substance}, then maybe we will have a new addition to all the existing models. The FS mass-gap must be solved___
First!!!
Quote:
|
No. The expanding universe is not slowing down. On the contrary. It's speeding up.
|
RP, I tell you honestly, there is no way to prove this, yet... Science has found no cc ground, to measure from, yet... It's all change, untill we know the FS mechanics of absolute mass... And BTW, I am talking about the same exact model you are, just with the subtle difference of the cc not being groundedly true, yet... In either your model or mine, yesterday's universe is smaller and faster___Today's universe is larger and slower... The tremendous controversy you speak of since `98, is the very fact of no cc ground to measure from, yet... This has been the problem in physics and cosmology, for hundreds of years. If you take Einstein's total ideas, they are truly no more than Ouspenski, years ago, stated them; "Relativity is intellect, inside intellect, looking at itself." This about sums it up, until we solve the mass-gap problems, between Newton/Einstein and quantum mechanics/uncertainty principle... This is the same E=MC^2 equivalence principle of years ago___still unsolved... E=MC^2 predicts positive mass, and QM predicts zero mass, for the fundamental substance___The true mass-gap...
Lloyd