Quote:
Originally Posted by JimJast
You both can be rigth only if energy is really not strictly conserved (independently from momentum). But so far it is just hot air. To demonstrate the lack of strict conservation of energy you need an experimental evidence, while the only one you have is the Big Bang hypothesis. Einstein's universe hypothesis agrees much better with observations (except observations of density of the universe, as you aptly noticed) and is not contradicting the strict conservation of energy as the Big Bang hypothesis does.
|
So you're saying that FRW GR with the cosmological constant set to the value that gives rise to a static universe (what you call Einstein's universe) has as a theorem the strict conservation of energy alone (devoid of momentum). Is that a mainstream theorem? [ anyone? ]
Quote:
|
That Wheeler and other Big Bang theorists think that's OK does not make it automatically OK. There is more physics than the Big Bang cosmology. For this physics the strict conservation of energy is important since without it its results are invalid.
|
If energy alone just happens to not be strictly conserved (or is even just thought to bot be) then how can results be
invalid because they are based on a theory that incorporates that?
That's completely circular as an argument for the strict conservation of energy alone. Is this an article of faith for you?