On Thu, 03 Jan 13 07:35:24 GMT, Steve Willner wrote:
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply writes:
you have to explain the stability of the universe if it is not flying apart.

The point is that a static universe might be in equilibrium, but it is
unstable unless one puts in new physics.

It's not hardly new physics anymore to model the universe as a 4-space
embedded into an n-space, or specifically as an onion peel onto a
spherical 5-or-6-space. This confers stability via the surface
tension and orthonormal gravitational scalar of the bulk, ie,
Einstein's constant..

Nevertheless, if a new model fits the data (and isn't grossly
contrived with a huge number of free parameters), I'd expect people
to consider it.

The only part of FRW I have no answer to is the observed increase of
CMB temperature with look-back time -- that kills any static model
stone-cold dead -- except that a case for publication bias can be
made here, which I've discussed in the other thread. This includes
the question of how much our expectations bias our results, a- la
Millikan oil drop experiments. This is a broad unquantified topic
that normally one would want to avoid.