Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

[RascalPuff]

A key factor of Einstein's Unified Field Theory is a (previously unknown repelling) force which Einstein discovered within and extracted from his General Theory Of Relativity. That is the same theory that revealed and introduced us to the 4th Dimension.


Einstein called this previously unknown force 'the Cosmological Constant'. When he spoke of it in his Unified Field equations he designated it with the Greek sign 'Lambda', which resembles an inverted capital 'V', like this: /\ . The non-mathematical definition of Einstein's 'Lambda' or 'Cosmological Constant':
'A previously unrecognized Universal Repelling Force, originating in all Matter and projecting across space at the velocity of light'.


Einstein's cosmological constant force does not eliminate or ignore the concept of gravitational attraction (the concept of a pulling force), but rather joins it. The repelling force and the impelling force are found co-existentially, side by side. The impelling force of gravity binds the universe together. The cosmologically constant repelling force of Lambda is Einstein's answer to Newton's candidly asked, previously unanswered question of why a universe full of impelling bodies doesn't collapse on itself.


60 Billion McDONALD'S Customers Have The Right To Know That Their Strongest Beef Is Four Dimensional (refer, FDA required list of ingredients).


Lambda. /\ The Cosmological Constant.
A repelling force acting across space out of material bodies; proportionate in strength and intensity to the mass value of its material source (particle/charge).

At a personal meeting with Hubble and others, Einstein was persuaded by the prevailing purveyors of what came to be universally considered - and mirthfully called - the big bang theory; to consider the *Cosmological Constant a mistake on his part; *said to be a repelling force acting exactly like and with gravity; except in the opposite direction; the strength of which increases instead of decreasing with distance. Preventing the collapse of a universe of impelling (mutually attracting) bodies.


At the unexpected discovery that the spatial universe is expanding (Silpher, 1927; Hubble 1931). Einstein's Cosmological Constant Force was dismissed as superfluous.

Einstein was thereafter persuaded to call it 'the biggest blunder of my life'; as indeed this record takes accented note of agreement.


It's Still The Same Old Story, continued:
The record can only very respectfully agree with Dr. Einstein's theory; as usual; while all others have grown weary. Abandoning the Cosmological Constant to the Lemaitre-Hubble model of an expanding - Big Bang originated-universe was indeed the biggest blunder of Einstein's life.


We will return to that redoubtably pensive consideration in a moment, but now this (I thought I told you never to play that song again, Sam.?) :

While a follow-through of reinstatement awaits anyone who pursues documentation of what happens when one objectively over-rules the subjective dismissal of the abundantly proven, objective concept of expanding matter: On the *chronically myopic premise that it is 'self-apparently' not happening.


Einstein's abandonment of his own Cosmological Constant - Unified Field - Theory is much controversied.
On the other hand, they aren't talking about how Einstein was back to and working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.

“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...

“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270
The ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Truth:

“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24


“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)

Long ago, this author noted that Einstein's designation for the repelling force inherent to universal gravitation is Lambda (Also, by apparent 'coincidence', the Aztec calendar's key symbol: /\ <repeated 9 times in a circle around the Aztec calendar>. Translating to: "4-motion" ).
Shaped, not unlike a kind of transversely considered axe. Also the shape of a pizza-pie-charted slice. So designated; so named. Godfathered by Albert - 'the Axe' - Einstein. An affectionate if levititious term for the Maestro of gravity.

Speaking of supremely toothy, pearly white authority in the name of Albert Einstein. Any Ph.D. in physical science who today chooses to disgrace himself in public contention with the Cosmological Constant: Is deferred to the obligation of professionally kissing the thin lips of Albert The Axe Einstein’s double bit Lambda. <>

4 photo static copies of a quarter for every counterfeit greenback dollar in change-seeker.
At yore command. A 4-D chicken in every pot. An improved world, beyond Shake'n Bake. (Old Mack. He's back?) ((Rated GENERAL AUDIENCE. Marca Registrada.))

A rash, sleep-disturbing look (in black & white) at Einstein's 4-Dimensional Geodesics.

This discussion is rapidly approaching its close. Before it closes, I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.

The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'.


These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.
Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.


If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity.

One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?

The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either.


“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE



The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.


Enter in google: "Einstein's 'biggest blunder' was right after all'., and
"The accelerating universe".

Regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[mkirkpatrick]

Albert was a genius,but many try to pull him down,thankfully you seem to be doing the
opposite.


regards michael.

[bottomlander]

Albert was a genius,but many try to pull him down,thankfully you seem to be doing the
opposite.


regards michael.

Mainstreamers say that Special Relativity generalized Newtonian Mechanics.
TOE should generalize Special Relativity. At that time, no more anti-Relativity.

(General Relativity is for Gravity, not geralizing Special Relativity.)

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[RascalPuff]

Past Is Prologue

Page 4 of 5 - 9/20/06
Subcultures/Psuedoscience SciForums.com

Is Yesterday Really Gone? Lost & Found in Space.

“
Originally Posted by Stryder
I'm not sure if this has been stated to you or not, however I'm guessing that most of the information you've posted here has come from another source.

The forums attempts in a causal way to keep certain rules, one of them is copying texts from anywhere on the internet and posting them.

What is usually suggested is to either house a file with the text in on your own webspace or link to the original text. It's also suggested that a brief paragraph "Teaser" from the text is quoted, with your own comments to make discussion.
”

Dear Stryder:

The other source this information came from is my own published post (Not a blog),Total Field Theory (Survey Notes Pt. II) at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
I hope this is acceptable to you.
I have linked to the entire website several times and been crticized for 'spamming', whereas the website is an entire book, with nothing 'for sale'.

Thank you for your consideration.
___


Phlogistician (3,008 posts) Moderator

Seems I share my disdain for your prose with others, Dorkon;

Others have put my other thoughts about you quite succinctly too;

http://killdevilhill.com/astronomy/r...33&i=352&t=129

You've spammed forum after forum, yet nobody takes you seriously, nor have you caused a paradigm shift in physics. I suggest you give up, and try to do something fruitful.
____

Kaiduorkhon - RascalPuff (Registered Senior 206 Posts)

'Rewritten physics?'. Hardly. One doesn't jack the universe up and place a new one under it. The math is already done. You find everything right where it is, while re-recognizing it. Google and other net crawling chronology confirms that the statements 'Gravity, electricity & magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions (with all of it's unprecedented contingent recognitions)' were not anywhere on the net until posted by a volunteer - Bkparque (Brian Kirk Parquette) - in December '99, in the condensed 9th edition of a hard copy essay and book, originally published in Naples, Italy and New Jersey in 1959. It's sold out all over the country (and in Europe, in three languages) in small press, ever since.
It has yet to be disqualified, though, since it was posted on the net in '99, Parquette, Caleb, McCutcheon and Mathis have variously replicated key portions of it without so much as the mention of my name - it's all over the net and vigorously paralleled in the first two chapters of McCutcheon's Final Theory .

Paradigm shift? Your name calling, unfounded, envy motivated antithetical attack is an example of those who would and do vacantly deny it. Although McCutcheon uses it in the early chapters of his book he stumbles and lurches off on his own to avoid a conspicuous blazing of a remarkably wide, clear, unprecedented ground breaking trail that's already established (for decades) by Truly Yours.

The best observation McCutcheon pens was published by him several years after it was posted on the net by B.K.Parquette - 12/'99; originated with my work, originally titled, An Hypothesis on Gravity (in '59 - following through on Einstein's General Principle and the elevator analogy as it had never been followed through before).


Dr. Richard Feynman couldn't disqualify it when he (very cordially) skipped three classes to argue it with me in his office at UCLA, in October of '66; he notably introduced very little math and complimented and encouraged me in my work; which does quote from many authoritative sources in order to connectively authenticate the unprecedented findings and narration.

You seem to think that a conspicuous following is necessary in order for a work to be tenable, when history shows many opposite trends, just as it is unfolding now, though the 'shift in paradigm' is in fact measurably underway, right here on the internet - those who are participating in this shift are deliberately or inadvertantly excluding knowledge of or accredation to this author. The more controversial this belatedly celebrated work becomes under any name, the closer my unfilchable work rises to world class surface. As for efforts to purloin it from Truly Yours, I wish all such navigators a journey that takes them not to deliver the issued work and the recognition for who originated it, to my front door, where it's always been and always will be. You may as well steal the Rock of Gibralter (bring your friends, guns, money, lawyers, politicians, David Copperfield <and his friends> and the Hollywood Guild...)

And you would have me abandon it in the middle of it's much belated emergence on the Gutenburg rallied internet. Why don't you and your 'disdainfully sharing' followers, and all those like you, simply read - instead of squawking about - the condensation at the provided URL and disqualify it as it has yet to be nullified - why not just do it - disqualify it - instead of covetously heaving and sighing with vainly impotent frustration and aspersion hurling anger?
______________________________

2inquisitive (2,398 Posts)
Kaidourkhon,
“
The title then evolved to 'The New Gravity', then 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', and more recently, 'Total Unified Field Theory'. at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, since it's being presented to and given free to the public your spamming allegation is empty. ”

“
Kaidourkhon,
Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight years before it was discovered. ”

Not exactly. The equations of General Relativity lead to an unstable universe, one that would either contract or expand. Einstein added his Cosmological Constant to stabilize the universe. It could be either a repulsive force to counteract a collapsing universe, or an attractive force to stabilize an expanding universe. Einstein did not predict an expanding universe, but instead used the Cosmological Constant to predict a stable universe.

Kaidourkhon,
“
Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is). ”
___

Stryder, Moderator (5,208 Posts)
“
Originally Posted by 2inquisitive
Does a gravitational field travel at all? ”

Consider this, a Particle Travels, a Wave is a Transversal method, where as a Field surrounds a point that emits it. Therefore a "Gravitational field" doesn't travel.
_______

“Kaidourkhon,
Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight years before it was discovered.”

Dear 2inquisitive:
You probably know that Friedmann found that Einstein’s Cosmological Constant ‘might start expanding or contracting at the siightest provacation’. Well. I submit that E’s C (repelling force) C is in fact expanding - causing the observed, spatially expanding universe (w’out a big bang); most resembling a Steady State universe.



To be continued.

[RascalPuff]

2inquisitive: The reference to back the statement that gravity is electromagnetism is repeatedly established in the issued text forum.

. Let me ask a question, please. The Shapiro effect has been verified. Electromagnetic radiation has been measured to propogate more slowly when passing through a gravitation field. The light takes longer to arrive when it passes near massive objects or their gravitational fields. General Relativity predicts this is because light travels a longer path around mass, a curvature of spacetime caused by the gravitational field of the mass. Does your 'gravity' that travels 'exactly' the speed of light take longer to propogate through gravitational fields? In other words, does gravity follow the curvature of spacetime like light? If it does, how can it escape past the event horizon of a black hole?


2inquisitive: Black holes are hypothetical. Allowing that they exist, they are a contracting 4-D space time continuum. The meaning of that is clarified in the text you are referred to at the forum - http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Ergo, It (gravity) doesn’t escape past the ‘event’ (‘optical’) horizon of a black hole.
________________________________________

Stryder

Kaiduorkhon, Like I said before the idea of a Discussion forum is just that. You place forwards a summary, then your thoughts on what that summary contains and agree to discuss/debate.

What you do not do is continue to Cut/Paste from one location to another, infract one more time and I'm afraid I'll have to start moderating properly.

I know this post was in response to someones questions, but you could use external URL's to show where this information is located.
_______________________________________

Kaiduorkhon (RascalPuff)
“
Originally Posted by 2inquisitive
I asked for a link to Kaiduorkhon's 'theory'. He did not provide a link, but instead more quotes of others and gibberish.

( From the questions asked and the proclamations made it is self evident that the work has not been read or understood... It's uselessness is a forgone conclusion.)

Kaiduorkhon, your expanding mass theory does not reflect the measurements physicists have already made. For instance, at what velocity does the Earth 'expand' to overtake objects? Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth is different than gravitational acceleration 25,000 kilometers above the surface. We can have more than one object affected by gravitational acceleration, some on the surface, others at various distances above the surface. How do you explain tidal effects, such as the moon and sun's effects on the oceans of the Earth? If all of the universe is expanding in such a manner to keep astronomical bodies a given distance apart, how can bodies of different masses exibit different gravitational accelerations? You seem to take the equivalence of inertial frames, then try to apply that logic to non-inertial frames. Acceleration is absolute, accelerate a charged particle and its properties are different than a particle moving inertially. ”

These issues are engaged in the forum (which I did call a website) that you prove not to have read. I am prohibited from transferring cogent information from the forum you allude to as merely being quotes from others and gibberish (The corroborating statements of Gamow, Eddington and Asimov are glossed over as 'gibberish'?) Your critique and objections would have me write or transfer the entire forum to this location, neither one of which actions are practical or allowed.

A tenth small press edition is underway and letters such as and including yours are features in the Afterward. Action at a distance effecting aquatic, atmospheric and terrestrial tides are explained, as well as orbital phenomena, the spatially expanding universe, inertial variations and gravitation on or near the surface of a major gravitational mass - accounted for in the work (as it stands in the forum) you purport to be doing a qualified critique on. (Refer: The Art of Missing the Point: When You Can't Afford - or choose not - to Catch on.)

________________________________


Page 5 of 5
Kaiduorkhon (Rascal Puff) to Stryder:

(9/25/06 SciForums.com - Is yesterday really gone? Lost and Found in Space.)

The talk of myself thinking to have ‘re-written physics’, occurs in the midst of what has been repeatedly, diversely and responsibly described as complete dissolution throughout theoretical physics - now sprayed with hypotheses, impersonating ‘theory’:

"Copenhagen interpretation, collapsation, quarks, super strings, tachyeons, glueons, gravitons, strangeness, big bang, charms, foam, 12 flavors, bottom-top, upper-lower, static point mass emitting motionless electromagnetism beyond a static field, celeritas constant isolated from light speed and electromagnetism - denied as information, dark matter, ‘infra-red tired light’, Mach's principle sans inertia, leptons, baryons (leprechauns, put-ons, take-offs). Lately, hip-hop physics rappers are gargling about altogether eliminating Newton and Einstein from the (‘What?’) gravitational field and slapsticking ‘waveicles’"; while alluding to the exemplary works of Gamow, Asimov, Einstein, Newton, Jeans, Bondi, Gold, Hoyle, and Eddington as being ‘gibberish’ (for example).

No, I certainly have not ‘rewritten physics’, although I have very significantly contributed to empirically re-cognizing and resuscitating it, in situ. Not without the New Age Devo’s impetuously spin doctored objections.
__________________________________________________

Ophiolite

"

Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon (RascalPuff)
Dear Stryder:
The other source this information came from is my own published post (Not a blog),Total Field Theory (Survey Notes Pt. II) at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

"

This is a blatant lie - unless you count material already stolen without permission from another website and placed on your own, to be acceptable.
________________________________________

KaiduOrkhon

"

Originally Posted by

Ophiolite

This is a blatant lie - unless you count material already stolen without permission from another website and placed on your own, to be acceptable.

"

The 'other' website was http://einstein.periphery.cc/. It is my website, it no longer exists. There are many quotes in my narration and monologue, whereas, they all accredit their origins - to authenticate whatever original points I'm making; which are numerous and unique to my work.

All the rest of my work is original and has been for decades (nearly fifty years).

'Stolen' is it?

'Lies' are they?
When the source is identified it is not plagiarization, it is, or can be an infringement.

There's a world of ostensible difference.

When something is 'stolen', you don’t publish who and where you stole it from.

'Stolen'?

That word applies to a growing hovel of plagiarizers - all over the net and elsewhere - relative to my original work - and that of many others.

You would authenticate - and emulate - such purloinments and filchings: if you could get away with it.

And here is one of many reasons why you cant:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html,

My original work is published in small press and sold out all over the world, in four languages - since it was published in Naples, Italy and New Jersey, in 1959, and the Portola Institute's 1970 WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE - complimented and distributed it internationally, by mail order, respectively.

It has since then been sold on consignment, in nine editions (the 6th of which is 627 pages duration); in over forty one California - including university - bookstores, certainly including Berkeley, UCLA and Cal Tech.

'Gravity is the 4th Dimension (for example) has been graffitti on the walls of Lost Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Isla Vista, New York City subways & enclaves - and the world - for over thirty five years.

Dr. Richard Feynman paid his respects to the subjected work as we debated it ('I am unable to disqualify it') in his study in October, 1966.

Cite what work was stolen, from whom and how it appears in my work as stolen material.

Make your allegory case or wash your enviously saturated invective, desperately name calling, familiarly whining and complaining, would be table-turning keyboard, or, wear and live with it. (Girar. O quemar. Buona fortuna.)
_____________________________________

Ophiolite

Having revisited your post I find that you mention the source for the material I was referring to. Mention it, in passing, without a clear identification through structure, language, punctuation, or font that you are identifying the source.

I ought, rightly then, to apologise for calling you a liar. I feel strangely disinclined to do so. Why? The seemingly unendless length of your rambles so discourages thorough reading that when one sees paragraph upon paragraph of unattributed material, one is reluctant to search and search to find that buried, obscure reference. Abbreviate your style and I shall not only apologise, but become your firmest advocate.
__________________________________

Kaiduorkhon (RascalPuff)

"

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Having revisited your post I find that you mention the source for the material I was referring to. Mention it, in passing, without a clear identification through structure, language, punctuation, or font that you are identifying the source.

I ought, rightly then, to apologise for calling you a liar. I feel strangely disinclined to do so. Why? The seemingly unendless length of your rambles so discourages thorough reading that when one sees paragraph upon paragraph of unattributed material, one is reluctant to search and search to find that buried, obscure reference. Abbreviate your style and I shall not only apologise, but become your firmest advocate.

"

May other Readers of this rhubarb have the opportunity to know that the former (deleted) website (now active forum) at issue here is http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie .

May it be that those who take interest in this 'misunderstanding' may draw their own conclusions, regarding my proper identification of the origin of specific sources of information, which are stringently authentic and abundantly prolific - adding empirical authority to seemingly incredible premeses that the Reader would otherwise have to 'take my word for'.

The present forum at issue is, I acknowledge, a (condensed from a 1979 copyrighted, sold out, 627 page, 6th edition) work in progress and certainly could use some sequential streamlining, editing (and there is much more information than presently posted)

(I think, Ophiolite, in your usage of the word 'unendless', you mean 'seemingly endless'. I salute your sincere and steadfast resumption of integrity in this discussion. That is much more like the venerable <if cranky?> Ophiolite that I - and others - have learned much from and are familiar with.)

I look forward to your - perhaps inevitable - contributions to my work. You and any other such contributor will of course be duely accredited.

[baudrunner]

Einstein's biggest blunder was just that.

He believed that the Universe was static. It was not until after he reviewed Edwin Hubble's observational data in 1929 which proved that the Universe was expanding that he changed his position, calling his static Universe theory "my greatest blunder."

Get your facts straight.

[RascalPuff]

Einstein's biggest blunder was just that.

He believed that the Universe was static. It was not until after he reviewed Edwin Hubble's observational data in 1929 which proved that the Universe was expanding that he changed his position, calling his static Universe theory "my greatest blunder."

Get your facts straight.

In straightening out the facts, Einstein's Cosmological Constant (Unified Field Theory) equations allow for an expanding universe, and, since 1996, when the acceleration of the expanding universe was discovered, the abandoned Cosmological Constant (Lambda) has been brought out of retirement and is being employed as LCDM (LambdaColdDarkMatter) to explain 'quintessence' and the acceleration of the expanding universe...

Enter 'Einstein's biggest blunder might have been right after all' in google.

Get your facts straight, indeed.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[baudrunner]

Einstein's cosmological constant introduced an anti-gravity component into his relativity equations to prevent a static Universe from collapsing due to gravity, not as an allowance for an expanding Universe.

Today's cosmologists are simply making another blunder. The observation of acceleration of the expanding Universe is merely an illusion. It is actually expanding at a constant rate. Review Hubble's constant.

[RascalPuff]

Einstein's cosmological constant introduced an anti-gravity component into his relativity equations to prevent a static Universe from collapsing due to gravity, not as an allowance for an expanding Universe.

Today's cosmologists are simply making another blunder. The observation of acceleration of the expanding Universe is merely an illusion. It is actually expanding at a constant rate. Review Hubble's constant.

Hubbles constant has been out dated since 1996 and the data for an accelerating - not merely expanding - universe, is accumulating ever since. Incidentally, an acclerating expansion is not the signature of any big bang 'beginning', but rather the signature of a repelling force acting out of all matter - 'just like the impelling force of gravity' - except, in the opposite direction. ('For every action there is a reaction, equal and opposite').

"Today's cosmologists ('Standard Theorists') are simply making another blunder", indeed.

My published, distributed and sold out small press work (which you ostensibly haven't read) predicted an accelerating universe in 1959, and has done so consistently - in ten sold out small press editions - ever since.

Enter 'accelerating universe' (and "Einstein's 'biggest blunder was right after all') in google.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[neutralino]

I think the point attempting to be made above is that Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest ever blunder" because initially he put it into the field equations to ensure that they had a static solution (the universe was thought to be static at that time) but then later took it out when Hubble showed that the universe is expanding. He believed that he should have trusted his theory, and not the general concensus at the time, which is why he called it his biggest blunder.

I think, although I have no proof of this, that Einstein was not talking about the cosmological constant as his biggest blunder directly, but the fact that he did not trust his own theory.

Nowadays, cosmologists are introducing the cosmological constant to provide the acceleration in the expansion of the universe. So, the points made by both Rascallpuff, and baudrunner (in his first post) are correct.