If you believe Hubble, then you believe that Einstein was completely wrong

[Menan]

So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right?

Make sense people, and bye the way Einstein DID CERTAINLY PREDICT THAT the gravitational attraction would cause all matter to collapse into a single point. 

https://www.space.com/31055-removing-cosmological-constant-was-the-blunder.html

One of the early implications is that because all matter attracts all other matter, a static universe would not long remain static. The gravitational attraction would cause all matter to collapse into a single point. And even if one did not start with a static universe, the mass distribution of the universe should evolve.

I am not anti science, I am just being rational, you believe in your God, the false prophet Einstein.

[beecee]

24 minutes ago, Menan said:

So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right?

Make sense people, and bye the way Einstein DID CERTAINLY PREDICT THAT the gravitational attraction would cause all matter to collapse into a single point. 

https://www.space.com/31055-removing-cosmological-constant-was-the-blunder.html

One of the early implications is that because all matter attracts all other matter, a static universe would not long remain static. The gravitational attraction would cause all matter to collapse into a single point. And even if one did not start with a static universe, the mass distribution of the universe should evolve.

I am not anti science, I am just being rational, you believe in your God, the false prophet Einstein.

No you are a fraud, and an ignorant one to boot. Didn't you just have a thread closed based on this same crap? Go learn some science for f%$# sake!  Oh and reported.

[Menan]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

No you are a fraud, and an ignorant one to boot. Didn't you just have a thread closed based on this same crap? Go learn some science for f%$# sake!  Oh and reported.

How am I a fraud for stating Einstein's mistake?

You are reacting like a religious zealot who has had their God insulted.  Fact, Einstein was a man, who made mistakes.  Think you can prove me wrong?

TRY...……..……..YOU WILL FAIL

[beecee]

42 minutes ago, Menan said:

How am I a fraud for stating Einstein's mistake?

You are reacting like a religious zealot who has had their God insulted.  Fact, Einstein was a man, who made mistakes.  Think you can prove me wrong?

TRY...……..……..YOU WILL FAIL

I'll play your little futile game for the time being. Please show me where I or anyone else on this forum has ever claimed or said Einstein never made a mistake? 

Einstein's equations in GR did say the universe was dynamic, but Einstein did not believe this. Later observational evidence showed that the universe was expanding. It is common knowledge that Einstein immediatley exclaimed this as the greatest blunder in his career. Nothing new, nothing sinister. 

But of course the points that you insidiously ignore is that 100 years after SR and GR, Einstein's theories are still used and in fact in the case of GR, has finally had one of its last predictions verified in recent times. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by beecee

[Menan]

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'll play your little futile game for the time being. Please show me where I or anyone else on this forum has ever claimed or said Einstein never made a mistake? 

Einstein's equations in GR did say the universe was dynamic, but Einstein did not believe this. Later observational evidence showed that the universe was expanding. It is common knowledge that Einstein immediatley exclaimed this as the greatest blunder in his career. Nothing new, nothing sinister. 

But of course the points that you insidiously ignore is that 100 years after SR and GR, Einstein's theories are still used and in fact in the case of GR, has finally had one of its last predictions verified in recent times. 

I do not have to show you anything, you called me a fraud for stating the truth.

You prove what you said?

Good luck with that!

PS. Unlike you playing my game, I will not play yours.

Next

Edited November 13, 2018 by Menan

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, Menan said:

I do not have to show you anything, 

Of course not, because you cannot show me what I asked of you.

Quote

you called me a fraud for stating the truth.

No, I called you a fraud for having an agenda and inferring far more with regards to Einstein then him simply being wrong on one aspect of his theory of GR, which every man and his dog knows about, but irrespective is still used today and still being validated and having predictions verified.

 

Next....

Edited November 13, 2018 by beecee

[Conjurer]

1 hour ago, Menan said:

So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right?

Back in the day, when Einstein developed the cosmological constant, he did it with the intention to make the universe static, so it would stay a certain size despite the force of gravity.  When Hubble discovered that space was expanding he retracted this part of his theory, because he didn't know that it could also be used to describe an expanding universe or dark energy.

Then telescopes got a lot better than the ones Hubble had, and scientist couldn't figure out how to explain dark energy.  Then they discovered that the place holder for the cosmological constant was the only place in the theory that could explain dark energy.  Then they checked the cosmological constant (as-is) and discovered that it already fit the data fairly closely, but it was still unknown if the universe would keep accelerating or come to a stop or be a part of a big crunch. 

Then it was again tested in 2014, and they found out that the expansion was even a little bit faster than they had predicted before, and the universe will probably end up going into a deep freeze.  Then they won the Nobel Prize in physics for it.

Then it was like Einstein discovered dark energy, tried to erase it, but it ended up being right anyways.  They just didn't know that the universe was supposed to be increasing the rate it accelerated outwards back then, so he didn't try to predict that it would.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Conjurer

[Menan]

56 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Back in the day, when Einstein developed the cosmological constant, he did it with the intention to make the universe static, so it would stay a certain size despite the force of gravity.  When Hubble discovered that space was expanding he retracted this part of his theory, because he didn't know that it could also be used to describe an expanding universe or dark energy.

Then telescopes got a lot better than the ones Hubble had, and scientist couldn't figure out how to explain dark energy.  Then they discovered that the place holder for the cosmological constant was the only place in the theory that could explain dark energy.  Then they checked the cosmological constant (as-is) and discovered that it already fit the data fairly closely, but it was still unknown if the universe would keep accelerating or come to a stop or be a part of a big crunch. 

Then it was again tested in 2014, and they found out that the expansion was even a little bit faster than they had predicted before, and the universe will probably end up going into a deep freeze.  Then they won the Nobel Prize in physics for it.

Then it was like Einstein discovered dark energy, tried to erase it, but it ended up being right anyways.  They just didn't know that the universe was supposed to be increasing the rate it accelerated outwards back then, so he didn't try to predict that it would.

You said "Einstein intended to make the Universe static"

The Universe is what it is, no human can make it anything.

This is entirely senseless

PS. Neither dark matter or dark energy is explained, in fact it only exist to fill a void in an equation that may well be entirely wrong

Edited November 13, 2018 by Menan

[Conjurer]

22 minutes ago, Menan said:

You said "Einstein intended to make the Universe static"

The Universe is what it is, no human can make it anything.

I clearly meant that it was his mathematical model of this universe he was trying to formulate.  It was a long held christian belief that the universe was static, but Einstein was not even christian.  I think he believed in some sort of Hindu religion, but that was the best guess of what the universe was like at the time.  He wouldn't be able to make an accurate mathematical model of turtles being stacked on top of each other infinitely which could be proven by science.  

Edited November 13, 2018 by Conjurer

[Menan]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I clearly meant that it was his mathematical model of this universe he was trying to formulate.  It was a long held christian belief that the universe was static, but Einstein was not even christian.  I think he believed in some sort of Hindu religion, but that was the best guess of what the universe was like at the time.  He wouldn't be able to make an accurate mathematical model of turtles being stacked on top of each other infinitely which could be proven by science.  

Best guess and a mathematical model that doesn't work because there is 85 percent too little material

 

That equals less than nothing

[Conjurer]

12 minutes ago, Menan said:

That equals less than nothing

No, that equals 15% more than nothing and the accurate description of an extra planet than Newton.  

I guess you have a better idea?

[Eise]

5 hours ago, Menan said:

So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right?

What does 'believe Hubble' mean? He was the one that discovered that the universe is expanding, based on observations, and that was confirmed many, many times. It was also predicted just a few years before by the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, based on Einsteins equations of general relativity.

So what does 'Einstein was wrong' mean? As others already explained, the Einstein equations do not allow for a static universe: it must be expanding or shrinking (yes, not just shrinking as you suggest). It was Einstein's belief that the universe would be stable, and a way to reach this was by adding what he called the cosmological constant. That, but only that, was his error, as he honestly admitted when Hubble did his discoveries.

But Einstein's best known theories, the special and general theory of relativity were confirmed many, many times, and are used on a daily basis in modern technology (GPS would not work if we would not account for the effects of special (movement of the GPS satellites) and general (effect of gravitation) relativity).

You know, science is not religion: it is not the case that science just believes what great scientists said. Their theories are tested and tested again, and eventually applied in technology. Also they are further developed, and applied. Einstein was sometimes wrong in his applications of physical theories (expanding universe, interpretation of quantum physics), but the theories he (helped to) develop(ed) are standing all empirical and theoretical scrutiny.

So anybody claiming 'Einstein was wrong' means just one of his 'blunders', which are generally accepted as real errors (some of them already by himself), and that is of no importance, these are interesting footnotes in the history of science. Or he means his big theories are wrong, but then he forgets that these big theories are proven right again and again, and applied in our technology.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Eise

[John Cuthber]

You don't seem to want to accept the difference between

"If you believe Hubble, then you believe that Einstein was completely wrong"

and "If you believe Hubble, then you believe that Einstein was completely wrong about one thing".

 

Similarly

"So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right?"

is differernt from

"So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong about one thing, why do you fight that Einstein was right about something else?"

And the answer is  evidence. In every case where it has been tested (and that's a lot of cases) Einstein's theories have turned out to be right.

 

Why were you even asking the question?

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Similar threads merged

 

8 hours ago, Menan said:

So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right?

You seem to be ignorant of both the science and the history here.

Einstein cam up with the mathematics of General Relativity.

Several people then looked at how this would apply to the universe. When Einstein first did this, he set the variable λ to the value required to make the universe static. Because there was no evidence that it was not. (The reason he later called this "his biggest mistake" is because he should have noticed that this is unstable; like trying to balance a pencil on its point.)

When Lemaitre did this, he realised that the equations could imply that the universe was expanding (which could also imply that it had an origin, which fitted with his theology). He used the available red-shift data to develop an approximate value for λ - his value was, by modern standards "wrong".

The value of λ was later adjusted based on the evidence available. For example, when Hubble published more red-shift data, the value of λ was adjusted. 

At one point, because of a lack of understanding of how stars work, it was thought that there were stars older than the universe. So the value of λ was adjusted again to make the universe older. So that value was wrong. But then a better understanding of stars was developed and the value was adjusted again.

Then the accelerating expansion was discovered and the value of λ was changed again.

There were many other people involved at different stages. And many other different measurements or estimates of λ. They were all "wrong". The current value is thought to be more accurate, but two different methods of measuring it, give different results so one or both of them must be "wrong".

All scientists are "wrong" nearly all the time.

So what is your point? (Apart from some incoherent grudge against science)

8 hours ago, Menan said:

One of the early implications is that because all matter attracts all other matter, a static universe would not long remain static.

Yes. This was proved by Newton who therefore concluded that the universe had to be infinite. Again, he was wrong. But that was based on the best information available at the time.

You seem to want to criticise people for being wrong, based on what we know now. This is ahistorical and pretty insulting to people who were doing the best they could with the information they had.

It is a bit like complaining the the Victorians didn't do laser eye surgery.

8 hours ago, Menan said:

I am not anti science, I am just being rational, you believe in your God, the false prophet Einstein.

Here you use the typical religious anti-science argument. You think that because all your opinions are based on religious belief, the same must be true about others.

To be honest, scientists don't really care about Einstein when doing science. You won't find a scientific paper that says, "this must be true because Einsteing said so". You won't even find many pop-sci articles that say that (I would hope there are none at all).

The only reason that people accept the equations that Einstein came up with is because they work.

It doesn't matter that he was wrong about some things. All that matters is the science. And that is (as far as we can tell) correct. If you removed all knowledge of Einstein (the person) from the minds of everyone on Earth, it would make no difference to the science.

And, of course he was wrong. But he wasn't "completely wrong." Scientists are always wrong. It's what they do. Although they are rarely completely wrong.

 

[Eise]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Several people then looked at how this would apply to the universe. When Einstein first did this, he set the variable λ to the value required to make the universe static.

(...)

He used the available red-shift data to develop an approximate value for λ - his value was, by modern standards "wrong".

(...)

The value of λ was later adjusted based on the evidence available. For example, when Hubble published more red-shift data, the value of λ was adjusted. 

Aren't you mixing up the cosmological constant and the Hubble constant?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then the accelerating expansion was discovered and the value of λ was changed again.

So I would say the cosmological constant was re-introduced.

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

When Lemaitre did this, he realised that the equations could imply that the universe was expanding (which could also imply that it had an origin, which fitted with his theology).

Well, one should be fair to Lemaître. I don't know if he liked the idea of an expanding cosmos because his theology. But when the pope declared that the proof was there that the universe was created at some moment in time, Lemaître warned him: knowing how science can change when new observations become available, science could eventually prove that there was no such moment, making God's creation a scientific topic. Maybe one could see Lemaître as a early adopter of the NOMA-idea (None Overlapping Magistra): science and religion have different domains, so they cannot conflict.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Eise said:

Aren't you mixing up the cosmological constant and the Hubble constant?

Yes. For simplicity? (And I had only just had coffee!)

14 minutes ago, Eise said:

So I would say the cosmological constant was re-introduced.

Changed from zero or reintroduced are about the same thing, I think 

[Eise]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. For simplicity? (And I had only just had coffee!)

I fully understand the problem with the coffee...

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Changed from zero or reintroduced are about the same thing, I think 

Hmm... A matter of taste, I presume.

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, Eise said:

But when the pope declared that the proof was there that the universe was created at some moment in time, Lemaître warned him: knowing how science can change when new observations become available, science could eventually prove that there was no such moment, making God's creation a scientific topic.

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that little snippet

1 minute ago, Eise said:

Hmm... A matter of taste, I presume.

I think so 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Menan said:

How am I a fraud for stating Einstein's mistake?

You misrepresent the situation.

9 hours ago, Menan said:

You are reacting like a religious zealot who has had their God insulted. 

From where I sit it looks like people reacting to an egregiously misinformed assertion. Which includes the notion that scientists are treated like deities in terms of questioning their contributions.

9 hours ago, Menan said:

Fact, Einstein was a man, who made mistakes. 

If you were able to find a citation of someone claiming that Einstein never made a mistake, I would be in the rather large group calling BS on the claim. But, as you have not, and I am unaware of that happening, this simply looks like a straw man.

9 hours ago, Menan said:

Think you can prove me wrong?

TRY...……..……..YOU WILL FAIL

That ship sailed long ago. That you do not recognize it is...telling. 

!

Moderator Note

Anyway, the last time you introduced this topic, Phi told you to do much better. This is infinitesimally better. There's still a rather large gap in understanding, rigor and support between what is needed and what you have posted.

 

8 hours ago, Menan said:

PS. Unlike you playing my game, I will not play yours.

!

Moderator Note

I beg to differ. 

You will "play the game" of discussing science, with at least the appearance of good faith, or you will be history.

 

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

It is a bit like complaining the the Victorians didn't do laser eye surgery.

Well said. In 1917, it was widely thought that the Milky Way was all there is, the entire universe. The "Great Debate" didn't happen till 1920. Einstein was working in the dark, compared to today.

Anyway, the title to the thread is COMPLETELY wrong, in saying that Einstein was COMPLETELY wrong. It was Einstein's own theory that was used to prove him wrong on the steady state Universe. That's even more impressive than him getting it right first time. It's because Einstein got General Relativity right, that we know he got something wrong.  

[Menan]

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You don't seem to want to accept the difference between

"If you believe Hubble, then you believe that Einstein was completely wrong"

and "If you believe Hubble, then you believe that Einstein was completely wrong about one thing".

 

Similarly

"So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right?"

is differernt from

"So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong about one thing, why do you fight that Einstein was right about something else?"

And the answer is  evidence. In every case where it has been tested (and that's a lot of cases) Einstein's theories have turned out to be right.

 

Why were you even asking the question?

 

I am asking the question to point out that we currently have no definitive data to say that either was or is wrong or right.  Einstein said that the Universe was not expanding and because of gravity would collapse on itself, Hubble then presented evidence that the Universe was expanding.  Now the evidence indicates not only that expansion is happening but that it's rate of expansion is actually increasing, due to an unseen energy force termed dark matter and or energy, which by the way to make a math model work requires that 85 percent of the Universe is missing.

The fact is that we are no closer to understanding the true nature of the Universe now, then when the Earth was at it's center.

The fact is that 85 percent of the Universe is not missing, everything is right where it belongs and humanity has no greater factual understanding of where it came from or how it fits into the Universe then an amoeba.

So is 85 percent of the Universe missing? or we do not have a clue?

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Well said. In 1917, it was widely thought that the Milky Way was all there is, the entire universe. The "Great Debate" didn't happen till 1920. Einstein was working in the dark, compared to today.

Anyway, the title to the thread is COMPLETELY wrong, in saying that Einstein was COMPLETELY wrong. It was Einstein's own theory that was used to prove him wrong on the steady state Universe. That's even more impressive than him getting it right first time. It's because Einstein got General Relativity right, that we know he got something wrong.  

Einstein's static universe was actually no more wrong or right then what we think we see now, as what we see now is that 85 percent of the Universe is missing.

Do you believe that 85 percent of the Universe is missing?

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You misrepresent the situation.

From where I sit it looks like people reacting to an egregiously misinformed assertion. Which includes the notion that scientists are treated like deities in terms of questioning their contributions.

If you were able to find a citation of someone claiming that Einstein never made a mistake, I would be in the rather large group calling BS on the claim. But, as you have not, and I am unaware of that happening, this simply looks like a straw man.

That ship sailed long ago. That you do not recognize it is...telling. 

!

Moderator Note

Anyway, the last time you introduced this topic, Phi told you to do much better. This is infinitesimally better. There's still a rather large gap in understanding, rigor and support between what is needed and what you have posted.

 

!

Moderator Note

I beg to differ. 

You will "play the game" of discussing science, with at least the appearance of good faith, or you will be history.

 

I did not misrepresent anything that Einstein said, you just will not accept that your defacto math God figure was WRONG.  But wait, he can't have really been wrong, because that would imply that the truth is known now, and it isn't

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, Menan said:

I am asking the question to point out that we currently have no definitive data to say that either was or is wrong or right.

Don't be ridiculous. Your next sentences go on to describe In a rather garbled way) some of the evidence we now have. 

So to say we don't know whether the old, commonly-held, view that universe is wrong or right. Is idiotic. We do know that it is wrong. 

24 minutes ago, Menan said:

Do you believe that 85 percent of the Universe is missing?

Why do you think it is missing? Where do you think it has gone? What evidence do you have for this? What connection does it have to the thread?

24 minutes ago, Menan said:

I did not misrepresent anything that Einstein said, you just will not accept that your defacto math God figure was WRONG. 

You have just been told that he was wrong. He was wrong on several other things. So what? Only anti-science religious crackpots like you care.

And you did completely misrepresent him when you said he was completely wrong. When the same mathematics was used, with new evidence to change our understanding of the universe. So the theory (the important bit) wasn't wrong at all.

24 minutes ago, Menan said:

But wait, he can't have really been wrong, because that would imply that the truth is known now, and it isn't

Except he was wrong. But the mathematics wasn't.

And science isn't about "truth". Another common religious misconception.

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Menan said:

The fact is that we are no closer to understanding the true nature of the Universe now, then when the Earth was at it's center.

!

Moderator Note

Menan was banned for breaking the rules, but for this sentence he should be banned from ever touching a computer again. This ignorance is willful.