Nothing I guess, It s of historical interest only because Einstein formally rejects the notion of a static universe. Observations tell us that he was right in rejecting it.

Universe seems to us stationary but it is moving.  Since we are part of this movement, it seems to us stationary.  These are relative terms. 

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi,

I disagree strongly that "Universe seems to us stationary". It only seems so if you restrict your vision to the Milky Way, which is a microscopic part of the Universe. Einstein only could see the Milky Way. You must extend your vision to the Universe seen by the Hubble Space Telescope, the WMAP and Planck satellites, the Atacama laboratory, the South Pole laboratories and so on,

And your statement "Since we are part of this movement, it seems to us stationary." is also wrong. The Universe is seen to expand on large scales, not on human scales nor on planetary scales nor on the scale of the solar system nor of our Galaxy, not even on the scale of the Local Galaxy Group.

I also think that one cannot learn much about this attempt. In cosmology all systems seems to be expanding and if one continues the list of Mats Roos indefinitely, one ends up to the conclusion that nothing expands;-). Could the expansion in given scale occur as rather rapid phase transitions  and continuously only in smoothed out description? 

no physics,  some sociology

Here is a Nobel Laureate waxing lyrical about 'infinity getting bigger':

A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study,

16 July, 2015, http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0130v1.pdf

Very interesting

A note on the cosmological constant: on a static, closed, eternal, universe, the gravitational field of a particle expands until the antipodes and then come back; the gravitational field keeps circulating the universe. In an open universe, there is not this problem, but one has to account for it when considering a closed universe. Einstein solution for it (which is the wrong solution, but it is the simpler) was to consider just the direct field plus the field that returns from the antipodes - this one being represented by the cosmological constant; as it comes from the antipodes, it appears as a repulsive field in the reference frame of the particle.

I have discovered an amazing thing: space expansion is like the apparent rotation of the skies described by Ptolemy model; in both cases, it is not the "skies" that are changing, is the observer. Dark energy is the modern equivalent of celestial spheres, dragging stars away as the spheres dragged them around.

But this is hard to accept, isn't it? 

Anyhow, if you want to check this possibility, you can take a look to the abstract of my paper on the self-similar model of the universe.

Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense, 10 July 2015,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

Dear Matt Roos·> "Einstein formally rejects the notion of a static universe. Observations tell us that he was right in rejecting it."

Of course, no,  Until the end of his life Einstein continued to look for opportunity in framework of GR for the existence of the static model.

Observations tell us that he was right, the universe is static. R=(H/c) ln(z+1). But GR cannot describe it, because the Einstein equations are written for local areas, and not apply to the entire Universe.

Therefore, from the cosmological model of Einstein and cosmological models (based on GR) of other authors we can make only one conclusion – they are not correct.

---

Уважаемый Матт Роос·> «Эйнштейн официально отвергает понятие статической Вселенной. Наблюдения говорят нам, что он был прав, отвергнув ее».

Конечно, нет, Эйнштейн  продолжал искать  возможность в GR существования статической модели до конца своей жизни . 

Наблюдения говорят нам, что он был прав, Вселенная - статическая. R=(H/c)ln(z+1). Но GR не может описать это, потому что уравнения Эйнштейна написаны для локальных областей, и не могут применяться ко всей Вселенной.

Поэтому из космологической модели Эйнштейна, и из космологических моделей любых других авторов, основанных на GR, мы можем делать только один вывод – они не верны.

Not true, supernova observations tell us thet the universe is expanding.

In addition there are many observations of different nature which give a value to Hubble's parameter. For instance Planck, WMAP,, the Atacama observatory data, the South Pole data.

Dear Matts Roos

Did you checked the data on Supernova? I checked. The data used by Perlmutter for his conclusion, perfectly fit into the formula of the static Universe. Moreover, the Perlmutter noticed and derived a formula that the spectra of Supernovae are not stretched in time, as it should be in this model of expansion of space, and they are mixed from different epochs, as if the light of different frequencies moved at different speeds.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271194805_The_data_about_60_Supernovae_used_by_Perlmutter_in_his_paper_and_MagnitudeRedshift_Relation_among_Low-_and_High-Redshift_Supernovae?ev=prf_pub

---

Уважаемый Matts Roos 

Вы сами проверяли данные по Сверхновым? А я проверил. Данные, использованные Перлмуттером для своего вывода, отлично укладываются в формулу статической Вселенной. Более того, сам Перлмуттер заметил и вывел формулу, что спектры Сверхновых не растянуты во времени, как этот положено в модели расширения пространства, а они перемешаны по эпохам, как если бы свет разной частоты двигался с разной скоростью.

Data The data about 60 Supernovae used by Perlmutter in his paper...