# A positive cosmological constant

*From*: "Anon E. Mouse" <agallist@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:33:52 -0700 (PDT)

I recently conducted research of issues relating to the cosmological

constant in the Lambda-DMD model or the EFE. I expected to find that

there were significant issues with the manner in which Lambda altered

the predictions and solutions of the EFE and I found that to my eyes,

this is not the case.

The best general reference I found is from Wikipedia,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Based on my own analysis I assumed lambda must have a positive value

slightly less than unit in order to explain the observed Hubble flow.

Wiki cites Riess, A. et al. (September 1998). and Perlmutter, S. et

al. (June 1999). and Baker, Joanne C.; et al. (1999). finding a value

of lambda of approximately 0.7

The wiki article goes on to describe the following effects of this

value of lambda when applied to the standard CMD model.

Describing these as surprising or problems.

First, a finite entropy of the observable universe.

Yes, if entropy is used to describe either unobserved heat or

information, either, the quantity in the observable universe should be

finite, as predicted.

This issue is related to vanishing entropy in a black hole.

Yes, since light does not escape black holes information vanishes

beyond the Swwrtzschild radius. The heat or information about the

heat, either, are unobservable - but, this is not the same thing as

gone, vanished, or missing.

The next problem are discontinuities. predicted by the lambda CMB

standard model. Well, such discontinuities are presently observed as

"clusters" of non-radiant space. Large scale voids, is a possibly

better term I have seen used in the literature.

Quoting now,

"Discontinuity also affects the past sign of the pressure of the

cosmological constant, changing from the current negative pressure to

attractive, with lookback towards the early Universe."

Yes, a small portion of the early universe with low velocity and high

mass/energy density almost certainly was gravitationally bound and

collapsed long long ago. The rest escaped through hyper-inflation",

although, hyper-inflation can be seen as simply an extreme case of the

generalized Hubble flow we presently observe and as characterized by

sub-unit positive Lambda.

Quoting again,

"Another investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for

any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the

cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation for

the standard model when the cosmological term is included. This is a

key requirement for a complete interpretation of astronomical

observations.particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and

the cosmological constant.[12"

Yes, an observationally bound universe has been a standard prediction

of relativity with or w/o expansion since the origins of Freidmann

equation. and similar.

Quoting again, requoting actually,

"particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and the

cosmological constant."

Yes, the EFE with a sub-unit positive value of lambda for our locally

observed universe does predict that a portion of the mass energy of

our apparent origins has been left behind, and we no long see or feel

it.

This is why I am puzzled by the final sentence of this portion of the

article which says,

"All of these findings should be considered major shortcomings of the

standard model, but only when the cosmological constant term is

included."

???? No, did the author mean to say, but only when the cosmological

constant term is NOT included???

At least, these are the results of my personal researches. I had

thought there was a difficulty with role of lambda as given by

Einstein (1917) or derived by Schrodinger, (1947) because to me

solving for A and integrating clearly should and I find do produce

these predictions, all of which are in accord with current

observations.

I have also found that I have a relative who was in charge of the Navy

leap second program during the some of the years (1956-1973) when the

time T the orbital period of the earth, was the standard for the

standard second.

The year was adopted because it was believed it would be more stable

than the day. This was not the case. The year gained about a second a

year and the day gains about 2 a century. This ridiculously small bit

of unverifiable data is the only planetary orbital period data I have

found to date.

None the less, It, along with the Moon orbital radius data which is

laser interferometry indicate there may be local planetary orbital

evidence for an expanding metric tensor in accord with a positive

lambda less than unit and approximately equal to 0.7

On a more reasonable cosmological time scale, the galaxy rotational

curve problem is very likely explained by EFE if it includes 0.7

lambda. Here there may be actual computational or predictive problems

in that Eons of time are represented. Recursive integrations of the

metric tensor must be balanced by recursive integrations of the stress

energy tensor. The successive decrease in stress energy (gravitation,

loosely speaking) should account for the observation that old galaxies

which should be gravitationally bound are actually not bound because

space-time is presently under more stress than in past. G the

gravitational constant is expected to have been lower in past than at

present. The metric tensor would also have been lower, but apparently

proportionally less so. old galaxies which seem like they should be

bound based on kinetics alone (the metric) are actually unbound

because the star velocity and displacement have been increasing as a

result of Hubble flow as applied to past and present dilation of space-

time resulting from the energy a big bang origin. (This final is

empirical for me, but more rigorous for experts in the field, citing

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0201097 )

Sincerely,

AAG

Sincerely,

AAG

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: A positive cosmological constant***From:*Anon E. Mouse

**Re: A positive cosmological constant***From:*Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Matrix rep of Lorentz transformation in Dirac spinor space** - Next by Date:
**Re: Matrix rep of Lorentz transformation in Dirac spinor space** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Matrix rep of Lorentz transformation in Dirac spinor space** - Next by thread:
**Re: A positive cosmological constant** - Index(es):