The accelerating expanding universe

Oli writes:Indeed, apologies.From what I’ve read, Mayer's logic goes something like this:
1) Einstein did not properly understand Minkowski's idea of time in special relativity as a geometric effect.
2) So when Einstein worked out general relativity he didn't properly take these ideas into account. Mayer writes: A fundamental conceptual error occurred at the beginning of his quest to unify special relativity with accelerated reference frames.
3) Cosmological models based on GR are therefore flawed.
4) Mayer introduces cosmological latitude Ϛ: an angular parameter relative to any arbitrary point of observation in the Cosmos. The different values of Ϛ map out a circle, with the time directions everywhere perpendicular to it.
5) Comparing the rates of clocks at different values of Ϛ gives the cosmological redshift for light travelling between them.My first problem is that 2 is just not true. As I understand it, the equivalence principle from which Einstein derived GR says that in a freely-falling laboratory in a small part of spacetime the laws of physics are those of special relativity. Mathematically, this means that in a small region around every point the geometry can be described exactly as in 1 (in an appropriate coordinate system). Minkowski’s spacetime is the foundation of GR.Also, the quote in 2 reveals Mayer’s lack of understanding since special relativity has no problem dealing with accelerated reference frames.Secondly, it is not made clear how 2 leads to 4, although I guess this kind of leap is ok if the conclusion is supported by experiment.However, the book doesn’t give a metric for the proposed four dimensional spacetime in 4, or a lot of mathematical details about how this comes about. Only two dimensions are described. Also, it doesn’t reference the matter in the universe and how that justifies the chosen geometry. GR says that the matter and energy distribution of the universe results in curvature of spacetime. How does Mayer explain gravity if he’s not taking general relativity into account?Oli

cavediver writes:...and is complete bollocks, much like the rest of his site. Funny how he has no model to back this up, and no metric as Oli points out. This guy is so clueless, he doesn't even realise how the concept of a "black hole" arises. He thinks that as long as he can squeeze in enough buzz words and cool sounding jargon, that he may just pass for someone who knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, he is just one big epic fail.

fearandloathing writes: Hi alf,Where are the white holes? Where is there any data and observations to even support a model of one?? As far as I can find they are only theoretically possible, and cannot be formed through gravitational collapse.If Mayer's model of the universe were true then there should be as many white holes as black holes, I think we should be able to observe one if he was right. Where is any evidence of one.

fearandloathing writes:It seems you are avoiding my question, where is there evidence of white holes?Mayer's model of the universe depends on white holes if it is to be stable,with no beginning and no end. How else would matter be recycled into new matter for new stars ect...Without this feature of his model then, as I see it, eventually the universe would run out of energy and end in a cold death.If the math that supports black holes is wrong, then his model is also wrong.Black holes are observable trough their interaction with the observable...ie stars ect...