>>In my understanding, it is the General Theory of Relativity that leads to the result that the Universe can't stay stable for a while.
>
>I don't quite understand this. It seems to me that the result was "a uniform distribution of stars would collapse on itself" and that this can't be.
>
>So? The universe doesn't have a uniform distribution of stars. The universe has galaxies of stars which are more or less a huge cluster of stars that are in fact collapsing on itself.
>
>Surely there must be more to the prediction that I don't understand, though I haven't been able to find a good text that actually addresses my concerns. Know of any that deal with this specific subject?

The prediction was that in the long run, the Universe must needs expand, or contract. But I don't know too many details either; I don't know whether a uniform distribution of stars is a prerequisite for this situation. However, it is my understanding that the distribution of stars is uniform on a large scale.

It seems to me that, while the math in the Special Theory of Relativity is relatively simple (some basic algebra, not much more), the math in the General Theory of Relativity is much more complex. So, we must more or less trust the calculations done by others <g>.

I don't have specific references right now. Perhaps a search in www.physicsweb.org, in www.sciam.com, or simply in Google, might help.