The Universe: Eternal or no?

You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down.
That isn't my assumption.

The Cosmological Constant
Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


...like a positive cosmological constant/dark energy...


False.

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Such high theoretical calculations of
olo.gif
are a real limit to the plausibility of a non-zero cosmological constant.
The above was only an example for a single field, and it is possible that the the contributions of all the different fields associated with the particles of the standard model conspire to produce a cosmological constant that is small. This argument, however, leads to the belief that the cosmological constant is exactly zero, for how could the fields conspire to cancel out all but 1 part in 10^120?

Do you think I'm retarded? :eusa_eh:

The conclusion you chose to omit:
Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood, the fact remains that the vacuum energy does exist. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a physically plausible part of modern cosmology.

No, I think you are dishonest.

Physically plausible BUT with a value of ZERO, not the POSITIVE value you need.

A "cosmological constant with a value of zero" is not a cosmological constant, dude. My position is generally accepted and is in agreement with empirical data. Yours is rooted in speculation, makes unfounded assumptions, and contradicts observed evidence and recorded data.

See "conclusion":
Cosmological Constant
 

Do you think I'm retarded? :eusa_eh:

The conclusion you chose to omit:
Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood, the fact remains that the vacuum energy does exist. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a physically plausible part of modern cosmology.

No, I think you are dishonest.

Physically plausible BUT with a value of ZERO, not the POSITIVE value you need.

A "cosmological constant with a value of zero" is not a cosmological constant, dude. My position is generally accepted and is in agreement with empirical data. Yours is rooted in speculation, makes unfounded assumptions, and contradicts observed evidence and recorded data.

See "conclusion":
Cosmological Constant

The conclusion was that confirmation was required.

Conclusion

In the past, we have had only upper limits on the vacuum density and philosophical arguments based on the Dicke coincidence problem and Bayesian statistics that suggested that the most likely value of the vacuum density was zero. Now we have the supernova data that suggests that the vacuum energy density is greater than zero. This result is very important if true. We need to confirm it using other techniques, such as the WMAP satellite which has observed the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background with angular resolution and sensitivity that are sufficient to measure the vacuum energy density. CMB data combined with the measured Hubble constant do confirm the supernova data: there is a positive but small vacuum energy density.
--------------------------------------------

The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.

NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.

Clumping Up only happens in a Whirlpool (Vortex).

The Cosmos must, therefore, resemble a Whirlpool, and is probably shaped a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos too has a Black Hole at the center.

What you still haven't explained away is the rotation of the universe, which you have run from twice already. A supermassive black hole would account for BOTH the acceleration of the distant universe AND its rotation which you cannot with your unconfirmed Cosmological Constant.
You might find this link very interesting.

TRUMPET UNIVERSE
 

Forum List

Back
Top