Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
Jim Jastrzebski wrote:
(Marcel Luttgens)
[...] 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.

Yes.

It might be _stationary_ though, and most likely it is since
nothing that we observe contradicts such a possibility,

Not true. While I am not an expert on cosmological observations, there
are several observations I know of that contradict any reasonable
stationary model of the universe:

1. The redshift of distant galaxies is roughly proportional to their
distance away from us.
2. The CMBR we observe has a temperature of 2.7 K; near distant objects
it is observed to be much hotter.
... there may well be others

AFAIK to explain these in a stationary model requires that one postulate
processes that we don't observe to occur locally (e.g. "tired light").


and
it may be shown that if principle of conservation of energy
is valid then it is almost surely stationary

Not true. GR and the FRW manifolds are a counterexample.


Maybe editors scientific journals should allow printing
papers that assume validity of principle of conservation
of energy?

Huh??? GR contains the local conservation of energy and papers about it
are published quite regularly. Perhaps you don't understand what
"conservation of energy" means in modern physics.... But in GR this is
not an "assumption", it is a conclusion....


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,

Obviously you don't understand GR. One uses "expanding" models in order
to match observations of our world. The local conservation of energy is
always present in such models, as they are solutions of the Einstein
field equation.


[... sillier stuff omitted]


Tom Roberts

You should at least try to understand what Jim Jastrzebski wrote.
Local conservation doesn't imply global conservation.
You should think "globally", not "locally".
Anyhow, you are outside the point, which is the fact that remote
globular clusters are much older than the GR universe.

Marcel Luttgens