(Marcel Luttgens)
Message-id:

[...] one should accept that the universe is static.

The universe is obviously not "static" since e.g. the moon
travels around the earth, not to mention other things that
obviously _move_ wrt each other.

It might be _stationary_ though, and most likely it is since
nothing that we observe contradicts such a possibility, and
it may be shown that if principle of conservation of energy
is valid then it is almost surely stationary (if its density is
~6x10^(-27) kg/m^3 then the whole ~70 km/s/Mpc "Hubble's
redshift" is consistent with the principle of conservation of
energy and so no part of it is left for the expansion).

Maybe editors scientific journals should allow printing
papers that assume validity of principle of conservation
of energy? Maybe moderators of moderated sci newsgroups
should allow points of view according to which energy is
conserved? Maybe then a lot of problems disappear
automatically.

After all Einstein's Field Equations conserves energy
automatically and so insisting that the universe is
expanding just to prove that energy is not conserved
doesn't seem to have much sense, and even worse,
it makes astronomers look like idiots (what one
astronomer already noticed appealing some time ago
to late [but not at that time of course] Carl Sagan to
stop somehow this nonsense with "big bang").

If we already have a good theory in which the universe
can be stationary but only looking like expanding with
accelerating expansion, and the same theory explains
"anomalous" accelerations of space probes, and is
basically created by Einstein just with different metric,
why not to stick to it and break for a while with this
creationist nonsense of the universe being created
14 billions years ago?

If the stuff is ready and waiting for astronomers to get
sober, why not to publish it regardless of whether they
want to read it or not? If it is wrong, the big bangers
should be only happy and if it is right, we don't have
any more problems with tough to explain phenomena.
Both possibilities give something good. So what's the
big deal? Why e.g. editors reject without even sending
to referees my paper that can make only the work of
astronomers easier giving them a simple picture of
the universe that Einstein's theory + conservation
of energy predicts and observations like "accelerating
expansion" and "anomalous" acceleration of space
probes confirm? Why creation of matter from nothing
is presently the preferred model?


-- (baffled) Jim