A Little Tiny Point - Stephen Hawking's Universe

[cosvis]

Hi AntonioLao and all,

You said above that Einstein's field equations of general relativity were "first as symmetric then later on his unfinished works on the non-symmetric tensors." As far as I know, Einstein first thought the universe to be static and in order to counter the gravitational force in his equations, he introduced a 'cosmological constant" . Later, mainly through the work of Edward Hubble, when the idea of an expanding universe, and the Hubble's constant became popular among scientists, Einstein regarded his introduction of the "Cosmological constant" as wrong" and seemed to have accepted the idea that the universe could be expanding.

Hubble showed that light coming from galaxies have a red shift and the further the galaxies were from us , the greater the red shift of the light coming from these galaxies. He speculated that the red shift of the light coming from distant galaxies were due to the Doppler effect and thus he concluded that the universe was expanding.

However, Einstein has shown that light passing through a gravitational field is also red shifted and this is known as a gravitational red shift. It is well known that in the universe there exists a universal gravitational constant acting throughout the universe. This would mean that light passing through the universe is constantly passing through a gravitational field which in turn would also affect the red shift of the light. The longer the light travels through the universe, the greater would be its red shift. This could mean that the galaxies are not possibly drawing faster and faster away from us, and also that the universe may not possibly be expanding.

This could mean that Einstein's first inspiration of a static universe could be right. He was distracted from his ideas because of Hubble's monumental work but may be with a false interpretation of the nature of red shift of the light coming from distant galaxies. Also, this could mean that Einstein speculation of his 'cosmological constant' was right and this could be the anti-gravity force operating in the universe that scientists love to speculate about today.

Yours Cosvis.

[Profpat]

Hi AntoioLao, Pat and all,

I be very careful of trying to redefine meaning of words. Universities still have studies in politics, ethics, theology, art, history etc. As far as I know these are still regarded as sciences. The Oxford Dictionary defines "Science" as: "Systematic and formulated knowledge, the pursuit of this, the principles regulating such pursuit, any branch of such knowledge, (political, moral, natural, etc.)....

Yours Cosvis.

Hi Covis;

Politics is a branch of PHILOSOPHY ( Plato's politics Logic). Ethics also is a branch of PHILOSOPY ( Socrates, perhaps Plato if Socrates did not exist ). Theology, come on Covis, RELIGION. Art, oh, how about ART.

Again there are 4 main and established disciplines RELIGION, ART, PHILOSOPHY, and SCIENCE. In the 19th and 20th century came the pseudosciences.

Best

Pat

P.S. Where I teach. History, Economics etc are taught in the college of Liberal Arts, not science.

[Profpat]

In Medieval Europe, there were only four faculties in a university: Theology, Medicine, Canon Law and Liberal Arts (Arts).[

I'm not sure what happened to philosophy and why cannon law, I guess the influence of the midieva church. Needless to say in those days the only science was medicine.l

[AntonioLao]

The symmetry and non-symmetry is more or less related to the homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime not its static or dynamic contraction or expansion. In other words, for examples: pefect symmetry can produced a perfectly spherical expansion while non-symmetry can produce an ellipsoidal expansion. The COBE program has already provided the proof (black-body radiation) for the symmetrical expansion.

[Profpat]

Wouldn't this represent dynamic symmetry Antonio?

[AntonioLao]

Yes. It can represent dynamic symmetry in 2 dimensions but in 1 and 4 dimensions the symmetry is that of singular Hadamard matrices.

[cosvis]

Hi Pat and all,

I am not quite sure what you mean? In my understanding, theology comprises many different subjects like dogma, moral, liturgy, history, etc.; it is definitely a science: "a systematic and formulated knowledge, the pursuit of this, the principles regulating such pursuits etc." (Oxford Dictionary). I should know, I studied theology for many years.

Yours Cosvis.

[Unreal Zelta]

Theology is not science, in fact it's on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Theology - Philosophy - Science.

theology comprises many different subjects like dogma

Not science.

regards

Zelta

[Profpat]

Hi Pat and all,

I am not quite sure what you mean? In my understanding, theology comprises many different subjects like dogma, moral, liturgy, history, etc.; it is definitely a science: "a systematic and formulated knowledge, the pursuit of this, the principles regulating such pursuits etc." (Oxford Dictionary). I should know, I studied theology for many years.

Yours Cosvis.

Hi cosvis;

FYI

Best,

Pat

P.S. I like how they subclassify accounting under mathematics and logic. They classify religion under humanities.

[Unreal Zelta]

They classify religion under humanities.

I sense a strong political agenda...

regards

Zelta