Talk:Cosmological relativity

Relativistic?
Near the end of the ‘Special Relativity’ section, there is this sentence:

Even though both the universes’ density (ρ) and temperature (T) are shown to be larger in the past it seem likely that they are purely realistic affects and that at those times the measured values would be what they are today.

I suspect that the word ‘realistic’ should be relativistic, but I am not sure. Any help here?


 * In such cases, it is recommended to contact the author (or primary author) of the article for clarification.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the correction I do try to proof read, but don't always catch every thing.

Cpcjr 12:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Cosmic time: meaning unclear
Any cosmology that starts with the universe as larger than a point would actually be younger than cosmic time.

A cosmology is a way of explaining the universe, so it doesn't make sense to say it is younger. So I suppose you mean that the universe is younger than it appears? So could we express this as: "In any cosmology that starts with the universe as larger than a point, the universe would actually be younger than cosmic time." ?

The key to Cosmological Relativity is that there is no absolute cosmic time that is that any observer at any point in space and at any time will see τ = 13.56 Gyr.

I wanted to sort out the punctuation, but I realised I didn't understand what you were trying to say. I would punctuate "...no absolute cosmic time: that is, that any observer..." and then simplify it to "...no absolute cosmic time; any observer..." does that actually convey your meaning? What does it mean to say that there is no absolute cosmic time but that any observer will always see the same observed time? Would it be better expressed as "...no absolute cosmic time, although any observer..." ? Oelphick 01:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your suggested improvements. They have been implemented.

Cpcjr 12:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

5D cosmology - special dimensions?
In this section there are two mentions of "special dimensions". Should that read "spatial dimensions"? Oelphick 01:46, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for pointing this out it should be spacial dimensions not special dimensions. I have corrected it.

Cpcjr 12:31, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Bounded Universe
This is not to be confused with Dr Humphreys’ White hole cosmology since in this model the universe is still inside the white hole’s event horizon.

"This model" is rather ambiguous. I could not make out in which cosmology the universe is still inside the white hole’s event horizon. If it is Humphreys', "this model" should be changed to "that model". If it is Harnett's, change "this model" to "Hartnett's model" or in some other way make it explicit. Oelphick 02:18, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your suggested improvement. It has been added.

Cpcjr 12:56, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Cosmological Constant
Didn't Einstein call the cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life, or something along those lines? What's the deal here, the situation today, and that? Since as I'd heard it, it sounded like physicists had moved on from that, and whatnot. --NeN 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)