"Hubble V1" -- The Object that Revealed a Cosmos of Galaxies
Strange Dunes of Saturn's Titan Tell Cosmic Tales

Albert Einstein's "Forgotten Model of the Universe" (Today's Most Popular)




A paper published in The European Physical Journal H provided the first English translation and an analysis of one of Albert Einstein’s little-known papers, “On the cosmological problem of the general theory of relativity.” Published in 1931, it features a forgotten model of the universe, while refuting Einstein’s own earlier static model of 1917. In this paper, Einstein introduces a cosmic model in which the universe undergoes an expansion followed by a contraction. This interpretation contrasts with the monotonically expanding universe of the widely known Einstein-de Sitter model of 1932.

The authors, Cormac O’Raifeartaigh and Brendan McCann from the Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland, provide insights into Einstein’s view of cosmology. At that time, the first pieces of evidence for an expanding universe emerged, among others, stemming from Hubble’s observations of the expanding universe.

Einstein was keen to investigate whether a relativistic model could account for the new observations, by removing the so-called cosmological constant introduced in his 1917 cosmological model. Einstein sets the constant to zero. He then arrives at a model of a universe that first expands and then contracts. This model is also characterised by singularity-like behaviour at either end.

In this paper, the authors also discuss Einstein’s view of issues such as the curvature of space and the timespan of the expansion, while also uncovering some anomalies in Einstein’s calculations. For example, they highlight a numerical error in the calculation of the present radius and matter density of the universe. They also believe that Einstein’s estimate of the age of the universe is based on a questionable calculation of Friedmann’s analysis of a relativistic universe of spherical curvature and time-varying radius. Finally, they argue that Einstein’s model is not periodic, contrary to what is often claimed.

The image at the top of the page shows Seyfert's Sextet that is actually only four interacting galaxies, though. Near the center of this Hubble Space Telescope picture, the small face-on spiral galaxy lies in the distant background and appears only by chance aligned with the main group. Also, the prominent condensation on the upper left is likely not a separate galaxy at all, but a tidal tail of stars flung out by the galaxies' gravitational interactions. About 190 million light-years away, the interacting galaxies are tightly packed into a region around 100,000 light-years across, comparable to the size of our own Milky Way galaxy, making this one of the densest known galaxy groups. The group may coalesce into a single large galaxy over the next few billion years.

Source: C. O’Raifeartaigh and B. McCann (2014), Einstein’s cosmic model of 1931 revisited, European Physical Journal H, DOI 10.1140/epjh/e2013-40038-x

The Daily Galaxy via Springer

Image credit: apod.nasa.gov



"Einstein sets the constant to zero. He then arrives at a model of a universe that first expands and then contracts. This model is also characterised by singularity-like behaviour at either end".

This is of course a CYCLICAL MODEL of the Universe and it´s a great pity that Einstein didn´t hold on to this model.

We cannot possibly have any ideas of how the Universe looks like beyond our observational skills, but if taking the formation in our galaxy, this can give us an idea of how a CYCLICAL MODEL works.

1) The cyclical Constant in our galaxy can be measured by the galactic rotation velocity.

2) The question of "a singularity in either ends" gives a natural answer in the CYCLICAL MODEL, and if taking an electromagnetical approach, we have an outgoing motion from the center of our galaxy as well as an ingoing motion towards the center, a “singularity-like behaviour at either end”.

3) This electromagnetic field motion gives naturally also the logical explanation of "curving motions in space" which Einstein called "the curvation of spacetime".

4) The formational constant in our galaxy then logically must describe a CYCLICAL motion which counts for both the ingoing- and outgoing motion.

That is: NO specific location can be subscribed to the whole amount of matter in any galaxy. The galaxies are NOT gravity driven and governed.

5) This logical explanation naturally discards the idea of "heavy black holes" and "dark matter".

6) This explanation also explain the "galactic rotation anomaly" since the natural motion goes both outwards and inwards in a cycle. Here, the formation in our Milky Way galaxy has an overall OUTWARDS TURNING MOTION, which the barred structure strongly indicates. No gas and matter can take almost an abrupt 90 degree turn from the galactic arms and into the barred structures if talking of attraction, but this is possible if talking of an outgoing motion from the center.

7) The "galactic rotation anomaly" just origin from the lack of understanding the CYCLICAL MODEL. Our galaxy have two poles of formation (two funnel openings) which leads into and out from the galactic center where everything is formatted and re-formatted.

8) In the case of our galaxy, the actually overall outgoing motion and transportation of formatted stars and other galactic objects out in the galactic surroundings of course leaves All the transported objects to orbit the galactic center with the same orbital velocity with respect to the galactic center. Thus, the “galactic rotation anomaly” is logically explained and solved.

This also clearly indicates that our Solar System once was formatted in the galactic center via electromagnetical processes and not "via a local cloud of gas and dust that suddenly decides to collapse via gravity". Our Solar System is an integrated and orbiting part of the galactic rotation and formation.

Note: Regarding the extragalactic motions of an assumed expansion of the Universe, the redshift ideas are completely wrong and cannot be taken as proofs for neither a Big Bang nor an age of the Universe.

Besides this, the outermost instrumental observations of galaxies and galactic superclusters contradicts such a Big Bang idea by the observation of “The Great Attractor” which also indicates another huge CYCLICAL MODEL in the observable part of the Universe.

Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher


Let me put some balance in the comments to this article. Although your comment has very little to do with the article.

Einstein didn’t hold on to this model because he wasn’t ignorant and was able to take in other thoughts as per the observational evidence at the time. Also this is talking about 100 years ago. You always have to base your hypothesis on the evidence that is available at this time

Also we can have ideas how the universe looks like. It looks like a web on the largest scales.

1 Wat is a cyclical constant? What cycle?
2 you are talking about a galaxy. There is a singularity at the center of most, of not all galaxies, namely a Super massive black hole. But there is no way for a galaxy to go “up and down” from that singularity. Only Hawking radiation let’s mass escape a black hole and it’s extremely tiny. In any way it is worthless talk because such a thing has not been seen and furthermore cannot exist.
3 I have no idea what you are saying but spacetime curvature is real as demonstrated in many, many experiments and practical usages such as GPS technology for instance.
4 What formational constant? The amount of stars created is dependend on the amount of gas and dust available. The older the galaxy, the less star births there are.
5 You cannot discard observational evidence. Never. You have to give it a place in your hypothesis.
6 Please read up on recent supercomputer modeling of how a galaxy takes it’s spiral shape.
7 See all the former points.
8 There is no such outgoing motion so all the rest of your point needs no longer an explanation but your math don’t fit also because it would need extra energy for the stars going outwards to rotate faster.

Your next point is also total nonsense. Look at recent star forming regions, nebulae like the Orion nebula or the Trifid nebula for instance. There are stars in every state of creation observed. Stars that are clearly forming from gas and dust that is gravitationally collapsing.

Your Note is based on nothing as far as can be assumed. Doppler shift has long been fully understood as are absorption lines. Also there are other methods that support it. Like type 1a supernovae and for the more nearby universe, Cepheid variable stars for instance.

Your last point of the Great Attractor, interesting but it doesn’t indicate it since the observable universe is accelerating it’s expansion. So at this moment in time at least it seems impossible that the universe can come back from it.

Thanks for your effort.

I replied to the topic of a possible “expanding and contracting Universe model” and I tried to explain such a natural law taking our galaxy as an example of how fundamental electricity and its magnetic spherical fields which can explain a “cyclical formation in general”.

Your “balancing reply” just repeats the consensus ideas without paying any attention at all to the alternatives of the obvious electromagnetic explanations.

You for instants replied:
"5 You cannot discard observational evidence. Never. You have to give it a place in your hypothesis".

The very same goes for you, doesn´t it? There is lots of observable evidence for electricity and magnetisme everywhere in cosmos, so why don´t you give these clear and observable evidences place in your own hypothesis?

Regarding “evidence”: There is no evidence at all for "heavy black holes". A hole cannot contain anything, but it can transport everything and this is what scientists should have asked themselves when the galactic rotation anomaly was discovered.

The obvious question should have been: “We can observe something moving around a “hole” and going into the hole, so what happen to the gas and matter? It must logically be transformed and re-formatted and reappear again”? And the same goes in my opinion also for everything in the Universe, but not for the Universe itself.

Suggesting a singularity where everything disappears and never to be seen again, is not science. Such speculative ideas are the only possibilities when working exclusively with the one-way-gravitation instead of working with the 3 known fundamental and dynamical forces which can be explained in great extent.

More “evidence”: Suggesting “dark matter” when being directly contradicted on “the celestial motion around a (galactic) gravitational center”, is not an evidence but an explaining away the fact that the former theory didn´t work as hypothesized in the first place, and therefore should be either revised in the light of the observations and hypothesized with observational and real matter or with alternative interpretations – or be totally discarded.

Here the scientist were forced to insert an artificial and exclusive attractive matter (right out metaphysical) in order the “prevent the stars to fly away from the galaxy” which of course indicates and verify that there is an outgoing motion in our galaxy which scientists cannot explain and grasp.

This is so because the prevailing one-way-gravity-and-gravity-only-thinking cannot explain dynamical cycles of attraction and expansion, but the electric and magnetic dynamics certainly can.
The scientist should have come to this logical conclusion: Obviously there is no heavy attractive force in our galactic center since all objects orbits the center with the same velocity compared to the center, quite opposite the gravity ideas of the celestial motions in our Solar System.

Try to read my first comment all over again, include these natural forces, and let me have some new and refreshed thought of yours.


Here is an interesting video on the subject of “thinking outside the squared box” and how to get new ideas promoted.

Gerald Pollack: Institute for Venture Science — Funding "Out of the Box" Ideas | EU2014 -


A critical overview of real scientifical revolutions and of making a foundation, which funds new conceptional and promising ideas which can lead to scientifical shifts of paradigm.

Read also this PDF page:


magnetism has little to do with the formation of galaxys , thats the job of gravity . i understand what your trying to say but as martin said your ignoring data that has been proven to be correct. back to your magnetic thoughts i dont belive that to be true becouse magnetic fields dont callapse into them selfs as the cyclic model states that the universe does. now there are 4 fundumental forces not 3 there are the 2 nuclear forces , gravity and electromagnetism. as for ur black hole argument i kinda agree with you but i belive that the matter that created the black hole is still there but its just infintly collapsed into itself and we cant see it becouse of its huge gravitional pull wiche sucks everything in. now about the galactic rotation anamoly i dont belive magnetism to have a crucial role in it becouse gravity is what really rules the way things are in the macro world and i do belive that dark matter has sumthing todo with it becouse there is data that suppourts it and points to it .now cyclic model doesent work anymore becouse of the exisitence of gravitational waves that confirms the inflationary theory . that kinda solves the your great attracter comments becouse the inflationary theory allows for sister universes to exist next to each other and which could be the couse of such an impresive event

as u sayed u have to think outside the box but with in the boundaries of what is possible

I would vote for a cyclic multiverse shaped like a raspberry with a navel cord for each universal bubble.

For a better connection see:

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)