Posted: Oct 16, 2011 4:43 am
by cavarka9
nonsense, there is nothing much to understand here. Einstein's theory predicted a universe which was not static,it either expands or contracts, physicists squirm, now they have to explain why, theoretical physicists get uncertain, so they take a peak at the data experimentalists have to show, they find from the data of the period* and see it as implying a static. Einstein adds a constant which counteracts gravity and lo behold a static universe, no further need to explain the origin of the universe, it always was. Few years later, with more data, it turns out that the universe is indeed expanding. Now, Einstein admits mistake because he realizes that he shouldnt have doubted his equations and fiddled with it. Many years later, the data suggests that the universe seems to be expanding at a higher rate than assumed from hubbles data. Now it is coincidental that the const eintstein used happens to explain the universe we observe today to a good degree. Hence Einstein being the famous Einstein of the e=mc^2 fame could not have made a mistake twice out of ignorance of the data of the universe, no he couldnt because he was all knowing, he infact made a prediction!.
The question which remains is whether the constant helps to model things as they are right from the beginning or does it model it accurately only at this instant of the universe. I will bet that the constant must have changed and will change because the constant must come from another factor which we havent considered, this must be true because all factors must eventually be a part of the universe, we dont know what the mechanism is and hence heuristically represent it by a constant. Because its addition was unprincipled to begin with.It was added to confirm to the wrong data earlier and removed in accordance to the improvement in data in between and finally brought in confirm to the data as it stands today.