|
|
 |
Einstein had, after the expansion
of the universe was verified, worked with that value of the Hubble constant
available to him, of 432 km /s .
Mps. For the Hubble expansion h he calculated the numerical value h = 4.71
.
10 28 cm –1
[16], p.117.
For a plane universe, from this
results an age (Fig,16, also see [16], p. 119)
.
This low world age caused some discomfort
to Einstein, as it could not be brought into accordance with other theories,
e. g. the age of the earth crust resulting from measurement of the radioactivity,
or the evolution time of the stars. In spite of this, he trusted
the correctness of the field equations enough to rather question the other
theories [15], p. 127/128: „The astronomers tend to regard stars
of different spectrum type as age periods of a uniform developing process,
which process would need much longer times than 10 9
years. Such a theory indeed is in contradiction to the presented consequences
of the relativistic equations. But to me it seems, this „evolution of stars“
theory rests on weaker fundaments than the field equations. “
Today, we know, neither the theories
of star buildup nor the field equations of the GTR are wrong, but
the Hubble constant in fact is much smaller than known in Einstein’s times.
Measurements the Hubble telescope supplied recently [16], deliver a numerical
value only one tenth of that Einstein integrated into his calculations.
So, the world is not 1.5 · 10 9,
but 1.5 · 10 10 years old! Contradictions
Einstein considered himself to be entangled into, thus dissolve in a very
natural way, in favor of the GTR.
By the way, this example shows,
we should not accept observed data, prematurely, as undoubtabe facts and
by this possibly question a fundamental theory.
Fig. 16: Hubble time tH1
and world age t1 for a plane universe
 |
|
|
|