So Einstein said ... and he never worked on it again except for writing an 1950 article in April issue of the pop science magazine "Scientific American"

Not entirely true.

The Fifteenth Edition of his book Relativity: The Special and The General Theory, contains an appendix added in 1952 because, "I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning."

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

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? ]

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?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

worzel, I think you hit it right on the nose. As far as I can tell, this is JimJast's argument against general relativity (and by extension, Big Bang cosmology):

Premise 1: Newtonian conservation of energy must hold for all theories
Premise 2: Newtonian conservation of energy does not hold in general relativity
Conclusion: Therefore, general relativity and anything based on it must be wrong

Except, of course, as has been pointed out to JimJast repeatedly (this constitutes the 5th time, for me), premise 1 is flat out wrong, Newtonian conservation of energy is merely a special case of the more general conservation of energy-momentum in general relativity. I'm aware of no mainstream source that says anything like "Newtonian conservation of energy must hold for all theories". Even John Baez, whom JimJast enjoys citing so much, has apparently told JimJast that Newtonian conservation of energy does not hold in general relativity (according to an email from John Baez that JimJast reproduced in this thread, before being removed by the mods for privacy violation). But JimJast stubbornly clings to his misconception, no matter what anyone tells or shows him. For all intents and purposes, an "article of faith" is exactly what this is for him.

And then there's the matter of his math only working by assuming a density for the universe that is 230% off from what we observe. IMHO, that's the final nail in the coffin for his theory.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I owe you guys for pulling me back from the abyss. My little brain throbs less now.