Talk:Static universe

message: For reference, the following is the information that ScienceApologist deleted from the article, twice:
===Basic description===
The theory of a static universe is the rival theory to an expanding universe and all of it's subvarieties. The different types of expanding universe theories are big bang, continuous creation, and oscillatory universe. Big bang is the most popular theory.
In the time of Albert Einstein, the most well-known proponent of static universe was Fritz Zwicky, who proposed the 'tired light' theory as an alternative explanation of the red shift. In contrast, the proponents of the expanding universe theories interpret the red shift as being the result of the doppler effect, due to universal expansion, or due to an intergalactic 'dark energy' which causes the universe to expand.
In modern times, the greatest proponent of a static universe is Eric Lerner, who rallied over two hundred like-minded physicists to sign his petition against the big bang at http://www.cosmologystatement.org .
===Astrophysics of the static universe===
There are multiple astrophysical aspects in the static universe model. The main aspects are described as follows:
*Hydrogen is re-created by quasars (extremely massive black holes) via the re-combination of their matter with photons. This has been observed to occur, in which quasars have been seen to spew out massive jets of hydrogen gas, often enough to eject the quasar from the galaxy that it originated in.
*Photons that travel intergalactic distances pass through transparent gas clouds (in which they are absorbed and re-emitted by electrons), and pass by gravitating bodies, both of which cause their frequency to decrease with distance.
*A cosmic microwave background radiation is caused by microwave emissions from the transparent gases that absorb energy from the stellar photons.
*When photons interact with intergalactic gas, the time between absorption and re-emission is variable. That causes the photons to be somewhat spread out over time. That spreading is equal in all directions of astronomical observation, in contrast to the big bang, in which this spreading must be of different extremity from different directions, due to the universe having a definite center. That time-spreading that is equal in all directions has been observed to occur in distant supernovae.
*Interaction of the photons with the intergalactic gas and gravitating bodies causes distant objects to be blurred. This has been observed to occur.
Can anyone provide sources for the above? sedwards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.25.145 (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The deleted information 

message: There are multiple astrophysical aspects in the static universe model. The main aspects are described as follows:
*Hydrogen is re-created by quasars (extremely massive black holes) via the re-combination of their matter with photons. This has been observed to occur, in which quasars have been seen to spew out massive jets of hydrogen gas, often enough to eject the quasar from the galaxy that it originated in.
*Photons that travel intergalactic distances pass through transparent gas clouds (in which they are absorbed and re-emitted by electrons), and pass by gravitating bodies, both of which cause their frequency to decrease with distance.
*A cosmic microwave background radiation is caused by microwave emissions from the transparent gases that absorb energy from the stellar photons.
*When photons interact with intergalactic gas, the time between absorption and re-emission is variable. That causes the photons to be somewhat spread out over time. That spreading is equal in all directions of astronomical observation, in contrast to the big bang, in which this spreading must be of different extremity from different directions, due to the universe having a definite center. That time-spreading that is equal in all directions has been observed to occur in distant supernovae.
*Interaction of the photons with the intergalactic gas and gravitating bodies causes distant objects to be blurred. This has been observed to occur.
Can anyone provide sources for the above? sedwards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.25.145 (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Astrophysics of the static universe

message: The article associates a static universe with Albert Einstein.
There are some static universe proponents that like to associate
themselves with Einstein so as to give themselves extrinsic authority.
However, most static universe proponents consider Einstein to be
the creator of the big bang belief, due to his clever strawman
tactic in the general theory of relativity, in which Einstein made
the obvious false assumption that a static universe is dependent
upon a precise balance of forces (as opposed to a regulatory mechanism,
which is described in the deleted astrophysics section). Therefore,
the article should make no positive association between Einstein
and the static universe model, though a negative (oppositional)
association is not inappropriate.
GoodCop
Do you have any sources which indicate this? --ScienceApologist 04:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources that propose a static universe with no reference to Einstein. Zaninetti describes such a model where space is Euclidean and spacetime curvature is not necessary to describe the overall shape of the universe . Mamas describes a universe in dynamic equilibrium with non-expanding space, and also rejects the notion that the gravitational field equation should be applied to the universe as a whole.  . 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not independent sources. References to Physics Essays do not belong in Wikipedia until others have taken notice of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Major French journal Le Nouvel Observateur has taken notice of Zaninetti and Mamas. http://olivier-4.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2011/04/19/le-pouvoir-de-l-imaginaire-remise-en-question-bizarre-vous-a.html 173.65.48.176 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Physics Essays is  refereed and published by the American Institute of Physics. These recent articles should be included in wikipedia. There is no reason to censor them. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IDHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles are present in Wikipedia. 71.98.128.55 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many static universe proponents are anti-Einstein 

message: There is an unpleasant fact that Einstein's stationary universe passes (hopefully accidentally) tests 
# for predicting Hubble redshift in vicinity of 70 km/s/Mpsc, 
# at the same time predicting density of space as 6x10-27kg/m3 while observations show (5.5 ± 4.5)x10-27kg/m3, 
# accelerated expansion (dH/dt)/H02 as -0.5 while observations show -0.45, 
# "anomalous" acceleration of Pioneers as 7x10-10m/s2 while observations show (8.7 ± 1.3)x10-10m/s2. 
Even more disturbing fact is that these predictions could be obtained merely with simple Newtonian approximation and therefore by every phisicist or even high school student. Luckily the way of getting them is not published in any reliable source (thanks God!) since otherwise the physicists could lose all the confidence in mathematical physics and the regular citizens could lose confidence in science. Praise the editors of scientific journals for saving our jobs. 217.153.176.243 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this is orginal research and as such will not be appearing in the article. --ScienceApologist 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with a fact that stationary universe passes 4 tests that Big Bang doesn't pass? 

message: Why not to use Einstein's theory of gravitation to prove that the universe is stationary while just a glance at Einstein's gravitation reveals why the universe has to be stationary if the principle of conservation of energy is valid (unfortunately the contemporary General Relativity can't be used since the expansion has been built into its metric making it contradicting Einstein's gravitation and the principle of conservation has been lost and so obviously the original General Relativity, still without the expansion of space, has to be used).
It's just a 20 minutes calculation, which I keep showing to everyone who's intereted, mostly to physicisct at my university, and to astronomy students there, for over 20 years (exactly 22 since I noticed it in February 1985 and sent it to Nature then) so the math has been tested over and over on hundreds of rather smart people, and all of them are as bewildered as I am. 
Would kindly someone explain to me why scientists behave so irrationally that having a ready to go Einsteinian solution they don't use it but talk and talk, about plasma, about tired light, etc. as if there were a big mystery somewhere there. Jim 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why proponents of static universe don't use Einstein's theory?  

message: I am very dissapointed to find that this article hasn't been updated or cited properly:
1) One of Einstein's last theories dealt with a "big bang/steady state" universe, as shown in the article. What the srticle doesn't say is that Einstein during his proof of such a universe, and during his addition of the cosmological constant, Einstein made a high school error in his theory by not prooving, in one of his formula's, that there was a non-zero. All of the sentences afterwards were flawed because they were under the assumption of a non-zero. Einstein later commented about this that it was his "biggest blunder." So the quote "biggest blunder" in the article is taken out of context twice.
2) It also states that there is a scientific concensus: "A very small number of proponents of the static universe continue to promote nonstandard cosmologies in defiance of scientific consensus..." There is no scientific consensus of what the universe will be doing. Some say it will all end in a big crunch, others a big rip (heavily promoted by the history channel), and even more say that we might have multiple universes with different dimensions (string theory). 
3) The article makes it sound as if there is no scientific basis for an idea for a static or steady state universe. The problem with that is, that there is new cosmology suggesting that there is what einstein called a cosmological constant; in new evidence there has been a rebirth in the idea of a cosmological constant, and that gravity, iver long distances, repels. This could possibly lead back to a conclusion of a oscilating, static, or even a steady state universe.
People who think we know everything about the universe don't know anything. They don't know how complex, even gravity, can be in the universe. We have no idea: how much mass is in the universe, how dense it is, what dark matter and dark energy are and if they even exist, and how will it end or not. We are still recieving new information about our universe; even today something so complex could seem possibly trivial to future generations. That's my two cents. look here for more information Jake 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Evidence 

message: Isn't the Einstein static universe unstable? Any small increase in a will tend to make da/dt positive, and the universe will then diverge towards infinite expansion. Any small decrease in a will tend to make da/dt negative, and drive the universe to collapse. It is like a pencil balanced on its point; with any deviation from the equilibrium point leading to positive feedback and an increasing divergence either for expansion or collapse. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability 

message: I have a suggestion that this article be split so that Einstein's static universe solution be described in more detail in a new article. Views welcome. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is necessary. If the article becomes too long, we can split them, but there is no reason to split them now. ScienceApologist 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I agree with the redirect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beast of traal (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article on [[Einstein static spacetime]] ? 

message: The article states "This led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his 'biggest blunder'."That statement is out of date by a decade. He did say that, but in recent years - since the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up (see Accelerating universe) - and 10 years is forever in modern cosmology - more & more cosmologists think that he was wrong about it being a blunder. See, for example,  - which states that "dark energy — the mysterious force accelerating cosmic expansion — behaves like Einstein's constant to a precision of 10 percent." and . So the statement needs revisiting here - because Einstein may have been right ... again. Twang (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The cosmological model referred to here is one in which the cosmological constant is tuned to give a static universe. This was incorrect in a number of ways, as Einstein later recognized. It remains incorrect even in the light of subsequent discoveries indicating that there IS a cosmological constant at work, or something like it. Einstein was a genius in many ways; but this is one case in which he was not "right". —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein blunder?

message: Nevertheless ionized high-velocity clouds can be a source of this material equal to masses consumed in star formationhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/08/19/science.1209069 - A Reservoir of Ionized Gas in the Galactic Halo to Sustain Star Formation in the Milky Way. In galactic halos are stars "without" "metals" like SDSS J102915+172927 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/nature10377.html - An extremely primitive star in the Galactic halo
, i.e. from hydrogen and helium (the star that should not exist - in the Big Bang theory). Thus the nuclear "creation" (disintegration) and consumption (fusion) can be cyclichttp://www.wbabin.net/eeuro/kren11.pdf - The (Non-)Mixing of Theories and Time Flow.  195.113.87.138 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other problems with the model 

message: I am very used to \Lambda_E = 8\pi G\rho/c^2 Ra-raisch (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong factor? 

message: A similar interpretation, close to the Breit-Wheeler process, in the line of Tired light was proposed in a divulgation Astronomy book published in 1933 (Editorial 'Labor'), by the Catalan astronomer Josep Comas i Sola, before the 1934 Breit-Wheeler publication, Comas-Solá pointed crashes between photons in its path from far away Galaxies would yield lower energy photons, the longer the path, the higher the chances of a photon collision taking place, hence the 'Shift to red', shift to lower energy radiation, in connection to distance of light source to us. (see enlarged comments in Catalan Wikipedia)--Hijuecutivo (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar but not identical descriptions 

message: Did Einstein ever actually use the expression "static eternal universe" or did he only come close? Source/link? 2607:FB91:C9E:485C:311F:4BBA:D0E:50A4 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein 1st promoted 'Static Eternal Universe' but changed to 'Beginning of Universe' after Friedmann, Lemaitre, and Hubble's Observation of 'Expanding Universe'