@Danu I never understood that. If I pop a balloon full of particles, all of the particles wind up moving away from all the others. What is the "kinematic" difference between moving particles and what astrofolks mean when they say "expansion"?
"Zee combined the idea of the BD theory with the Higgs-Mechanism of Symmetry Breakdown for mass generation, which led to a scalar-tensor theory with Higgs field as scalar field, in which the scalar field is massive (short-ranged). An example of this theory was proposed by H. Dehnen and H. Frommert 1991, parting from the nature of Higgs field interacting gravitational- and Yukawa (long-ranged)-like with the particles that get mass through it"
"In language that rarely appeared in the unpolluted pages of Annalen der Physik, Abraham (1912c, 1056) accused Einstein’s theory of relativity of having “exerted an hypnotic influence especially on the youngest mathematical physicists which threatened to hamper the healthy development of theoretical physics.”"
He denied Einstein and the Evidence!
This paper talks about Einstein's theory of gravitation using a variable speed of light
Are there any proposed solutions to the following problem:
People can only learn a limited amount of knowledge in their lifetime. Physics and math theories are becoming more complex, and it becomes harder to understand them as time passes. On the other hand, a person's learning capacity is limit...
@DanielSank : IMHO a better analogy is squeezing a stress-ball down in your fist, and then letting go. Or the raisin cake. IMHO it's important to appreciate that space isn't nothing, and that there is no evidential reason for assuming that the universe has no centre or edge.
@Danu : it isn't evidence for the universe not having a centre. It's evidence for the raisin-cake expansion of space, wherein being in space can be likened to being in a fog. The expanding universe isn't like Daniel Sank's moving particles. But a raisin cake does have a centre.
@Danu : it doesn't. Note that a gravitational field is inhomogeneous space. There is no overall gravitational field in the universe, it didn't collapse when it was dense. The fact that we're here is evidence that space is homogeneous on the large scale. But that isn't evidence that space has no centre.
I would go so far as to say that the expanding universe is hard scientific evidence that space is not infinite. (How anybody can square an infinite universe with the Big Bang beats me). And if it isn't infinite and if it's flat as WMAP suggests, with no magical mysterious intrinsic curvature, that means space is somehow bounded. And that means it has a centre. The thing I don't understand is why Einstein didn't predict it.
Is it possible that every points in the universe look the same, except there might be a centre (and its neighbourhood) that is not, but that region of inhomogeneity just happen to lie outside our hubble horizon?
Or is the CMB already have this information encoded in it since it corresponds to the period in the history of the universe where it just became transparent (the last scattering surface), hence any evidence of a inhomogenious pathc of spacetime must already be "projected" onto it?
and the homogenity of the CMB thus rules out the presence of a centre?