[RascalPuff]

“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24


“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)
__________

From Jacobowski, to Rascal Puff 4/8/07

It seems you are putting words into Eddington's mouth without alerting us:

"Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘strangeness’, 'charms') - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless."

Eddington died in 1944, so he could not possibly have made a statement about superstrings.

________________

Dear Jacobowski:
The words you say I seem to be putting into Eddington's mouth without alerting you, are in parentheses and also marked with an asterisk * . Eddington speaks of 'some rather fantastic' explanations, but does not present any examples of his time, so I - ostensibly and markedly - presented some examples of our time. I believe this simple and obvious qualification is clear to any unbiased reader.
________

There are other scientific disagreements with the so called Big Bang theory:

The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

14 May 1976


"An Accelerating Universe?" "...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley...


'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1976, Kent B. Robertson).


'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'

Very Truly Yours,


David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson

( Mr. David F. Sicks received no response, though I've been in touch with him for several years - franklin_6@msn.com)
__________

"Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49

From: RascalPuff
______


Date: 2007-04-12 T20:47:08
NEW CLUES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DARK MATTER: Einstein May Have Been Right After All:
The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right — maybe.
A strange form of energy called "dark energy" is looking a little more like the repulsive force that Einstein theorized in an attempt to balance the universe against its own gravity. Even if Einstein turns out to be wrong, the universe's dark energy probably won't destroy the universe any sooner than about 30 billion years from now, say Hubble researchers.
"Right now we're about twice as confident than before that Einstein's cosmological constant is real, or at least dark energy does not appear to be changing fast enough (if at all) to cause an end to the universe anytime soon," says Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore.
Riess used Hubble to find nature's own "weapons of mass destruction" — very distant supernovae that exploded when the universe was less than half its current age. The apparent brightness of a certain type of supernova gives cosmologists a way to measure the expansion rate of the universe at different times in the past.
Riess and his team joined efforts with the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) program, the largest deep galaxy survey attempted by Hubble to date, to turn the Space Telescope into a supernova search engine on an unprecedented scale. In the process, they discovered 42 new supernovae in the GOODS area, including 6 of the 7 most distant known.
Cosmologists understand almost nothing about dark energy even though it appears to comprise about 70 percent of the universe. They are desperately seeking to uncover its two most fundamental properties: its strength and its permanence.
In a paper to be published in the Astrophysical Journal, Riess and his collaborators have made the first meaningful measurement of the second property, its permanence.
Currently, there are two leading interpretations for the dark energy as well as many more exotic possibilities. It could be an energy percolating from empty space as Einstein's theorized "cosmological constant," an interpretation which predicts that dark energy is unchanging and of a prescribed strength.
An alternative possibility is that dark energy is associated with a changing energy field dubbed "quintessence."
This field would be causing the current acceleration — a milder version of the inflationary episode from which the early universe emerged.
When astronomers first realized the universe was accelerating, the conventional wisdom was that it would expand forever. However, until we better understand the nature of dark energy—its properties—other scenarios for the fate of the universe are possible.

If the repulsion from dark energy is or becomes stronger than Einstein's prediction, the universe may be torn apart by a future "Big Rip," during which the universe expands so violently that first the galaxies, then the stars, then planets, and finally atoms come unglued in a catastrophic end of time. Currently this idea is very speculative, but being pursued by theorists.
At the other extreme, a variable dark energy might fade away and then flip in force such that it pulls the universe together rather then pushing it apart.
This would lead to a "big crunch" where the universe ultimately implodes. "This looks like the least likely scenario at present," says Riess.
Understanding dark energy and determining the universe's ultimate fate will require further observations. Hubble and future space telescopes capable of looking more than halfway across the universe will be needed to achieve the necessary precision. The determination of the properties of dark energy has become the key goal of astronomy and physics today.
CONTACT

Don Savage
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202-358-1547; E-mail: dsavage@hq.nasa.gov)
Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
(Phone: 410-338-4514; E-mail: villard@stsci.edu)
Adam Riess
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
(Phone: 410-338-4509; E-mail: ariess@stsci.edu)
________
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - New Clues About the Nature of Dark ...

... Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All View this image. The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right — maybe. ...
hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/12/text/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - New Clues About the Nature of Dark ...

February 20, 2004 12:00 PM (EST). News Release Number: STScI-2004-12. New Clues About the Nature of Dark Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All ...
hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/12/ - 16k - Cached - www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020917070128.htm - 61k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
99 years of proof: Albert Einstein is still right after decades of ...

_____


From Buck Dharwin to RascalPuff
4/9/07
Problem: There is no common - big bang - center from which the observed expanding universe expands. The expansion is astrophysically established as dynamically expanding in direct line of sight, away from a given observer, from any location. This is not the signature of an explosion from a common center.
<<

That's not a problem for the Big Bang theory. It doesn't claim that there was anything like a conventional "explosion" (*It used to). Neither does it require there to have been a common center (*It used to). In BB cosmology, all points in space suffice equally for the center (That's one of the renovations that have been applied to the Big Bang since it's inception - absorbing the dynamics of the <abandoned> cosmological constant).
It's also inaccurate to claim that it's not a theory. Like any good theory, it has made predictions, and these have been tested. It predicted the cosmic background radiation, and this was in fact found, supporting the theory (*Cosmic background radiation is applicable to any expanding universe scenario).
________

From *RascalPuff to Buck Dharwin 4/9/07
The two mainstays of Big Bang are Hubbles 'red shift' expanding universe, and 'cosmic background radiation'.
Recent observations find the so called big bang universe to be increasing in its rate of expansion. This is the signature of a repelling force acting across space, 'just like conventional gravity', except, in the opposite direction (preventing the universe from collapsing on itself).
The big bang theory has evolved from having a common center, and a 'cause for the expansion' to elaborately sidestepping the formerly central - since, compliantly metamorphosed - issue of a common center, and apparently ignoring the accumulating observations that the spatially expanding universe is picking up speed.
Background radiation was predicted by George Gamow in 1949 and (accidentally) proved in 1963, Gamow proclaimed that such radiation would contribute to a big bang theory. That proclamation is based on the premise that a universe of greater heat in the past reveals a 'big bang' universe.
Of the two mainstays, the first is being overtaken: by an expanding universe that is increasing in speed.
The second is a 'prediction' that background radiation is history of a big bang.
What background radiation indicates is a relatively more dense universe at earlier times, explicable in more ways than the proposed big bang. Specifically, the observed, controversied background radiation is as much 'proof' of a physically (as well as spatially) expanding universe, that was more dense and hotter at earlier moments than it is at later moments. That is to say, it appears that the presently abandoned Steady State and Cosmological Constant theories are overdue for reinstatement.
______

From Buck Dharwin to Rascal Puff
What background radiation indicates is a relatively more dense universe at earlier times, explicable in more ways than the proposed big bang.
<<

So much for the "unprejudiced reader", eh? Your angle is quite clear.
I'm not interested in arguing for or against Big Bang theory. If you've got an alternate theory that explains the same things, then have at it, but don't drag me in with you. I merely pointed out that the theory made a prediction, which was verified, and so it qualifies as a theory.
As for geometric "sidestepping", I see this as the weakest argument in the anti-Banger arsenal. Perhaps you've got an algorithm that maps every existing point in space back to the interior of a singularity, but I'd dearly love to see how it assigns one of these existing points in space the role of "center".
This isn't to say that the universe doesn't have a geometric center. For all I know, it does. Wouldn't matter either way.
_____
From Rascal Puff to Buck Dharwin
The Big Bang has always been undone by having no common center from which the expansion disperses. Presently it is yet again undone by the observations that the spatially expanding universe is increasing its speed.
The background radiation is more likely the result of an earlier, more dense steady state universe than any big bang. A steady state (no beginning, no end) universe sustains itself without the spontaneous creation of hydrogen: when the physical universe is expanding, as well as being the cause of the spatially expanding universe, by way of the repelling force of the cosmological constant, originating out of all matter parallel to Newton's gravity, while acting in the opposite direction.
I am aware that Newton's gravity has been functionally abandoned, whereas 'the curvature of space' and 'geodesics' are explicable by way of the employment of the expansion of matter itself, corresponding with and the cause of the spatially expanding universe. As the status quo stands, Standard Theory is convinced that without the big bang, there is no explanation for the expanding universe. For this reason, 'Standard Theory' is wrong. There is an alternative explanation, and that is a physically expanding (physically 4-D) universe complimenting and causing the observed spatially expanding universe.
We are apparently agreed to disagree. Notwithstanding, I submit that the abandoned Cosmological Constant will be reinstated, and that the 'curvature of space' will be reinterpreted, to accomodate a physically as well as spatially expanding universe. George Gamow's prediction of the finding of background radiation, along with the interpretation of what that means - desperate measures to explain Lemaitre's ad hoc innovative explanation for the unexpectedly discovered spatially expanding universe. Interpretations to replicated a justification for elevating 'the Big Bang' to a status of 'theory'.
20th century physics abounds with arbitrarily rejected proof of a physically expanding universe - re: http://delphi.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie 21st century physics embraces the big bang in a relationship untenable from its outset; foreordained to failure. The reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant is literally gaining on the Big Bang, via the observed increasing rate of expansion. (re: madprof21@optonline.net - associate Prof, Nassau U.)
_______

From PuzzledCow to RascalPuff
4/10/07
++The reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant is literally gaining on the Big Bang, via the observed increasing rate of expansion.++

Not sure what your point is. The active process by which the expansion is supposed to accelerate is already a part of the big bang theory, be it under the name of "dark energy", "quintessence" or just "cosmological constant", or a combination of three different things - well, the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant belongs to the same paradigm.

_________________

From RascalPuff to PuzzledCow
The big bang commenced as an hypothesis based on 'red shift'. In 1949 Gamow predicted that background radiation should exist as a residual hangover from the big bang. Background radiation was detected in 1963 - hastily promoting the big bang to a theory status. Whereas, any expanding universe will inevitably be more dense in its past, as compared to the present, the presently abandoned steady state theory yields the same conclusion while the accelerating expansion of physical matter (in four dimensions) reinstates the steady state theory.
The big bang hypothesis evolved into a theory by way of a conceptually polarized, prejudiced interpretation of the cause of the measured background radiation. Since then the big bang premise has disconnected itself from the requirement of a center source from which it originates. Now furthermore proclaiming that the recently and unexpectedly discovered acceleration of the (spatially) expanding universe is caused by the emphatically hypothetical impetus of 'dark energy', 'quintessence' or just (pilfers and tailors the) 'cosmological constant' (culminating in what you offer as a 'combination of three different things'); which you proclaim as 'already a part of the big bang theory'. You go on to proclaim (of the newly and unexpectedly observed accelerating expansion of the universe) that "the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant belongs to the same paradigm".

'Paradigm' in this usage is 'Standard Theory' (ST). The big bang has already arbitraily 'acquired' measured background radiation as alleged proof of itself - a more dense universe at an earlier time. On the other hand there is alternative explanation for predicatably dense microwave background radiation and that is the steady state theory; including the repelling force of the cosmological constant that accompanies it.

Whereas, reiterating your own words, "...well, the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant (steady state theory) belongs (sic) to the same paradigm."
By this ungrounded proclamation do you mean that the (formerly abandoned) cosmological constant is interchangeable with the the hypothetical 'dark energy', 'quintessence' you speak of? The cosmological constant accompanies the steady state theory, and the steady state theory - including the accelerating expansion of (4-D) matter itself - is the rigidly ignored alternative to the big bang, which has embraced and displaced many of the characteristics of the steady state theory, while simultaneously rejecting it.
Is it your point to say that, if the expanding universe is accelerating, the (repeatedly reconstructed) big bang has it accounted for; by way of hypothesis and/or your unexplained reactivation of the cosmological constant or steady state theory?
Basically not sure what your point is.




Your commendably prompt response (that of 'PuzzledCow') authenticating Einstein's (highly qualified) quote does not address the mainstream of unresolved issues as they are presented in the subjected transmission.

The (capriciously reappearing) endemic 'question' as to whether or not reality is real, or not, was long ago put to rest by Socrates and Plato. Einstein himself puts it away with his closing qualification, "I concede that the natural sciences concern the 'real'"...(but I am still not a realist.')

In context of its inclusion in this discussion, Todd Matthews Kelso's statement about relativity is applicable to all theoretical matters of science: except laws. - K. B. Robertson (aka RascalPuff)

__

4/11/07
PuzzledCow wrote:
First, I'm NOT a proponent of the big poof theory. However, that theory is permanently evolving, much like Ptolemy's earth-centric theory was evolving into variants by adding epicycles and deferents. One of these epicycles is the cosmological constant, an old hat that Einstein had postulated in his original theory in order to keep the universe both finite and static, later was discarded by Einstein, and was put in the circuit again by 2000 or so when cosmologists deduced an acceleration of expansion from observation of the redshifts - the redshifts are no more seen as the result of a Doppler effect but as the expansion of space itself, whatever that means. My previous comments are from the information available in various publications, see for exemple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
(the warning at the head of this page confirms that the whole story is unclear).
As for the quote in my sig, Z authenticated it perfectly.

"`The physical world is real.' ...[That] statement appears to me, however, to be, in itself, meaningless, as if one said: `The physical world is ck-a-doodle-do.' It appears to me that the `real' is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole)..." - Albert Einstein

______________
The above dialogue between ZEI1, PuzzleCow, Mike and myself occurred in the 'About Physics' forum of the internet. 10-11/4/07

___

(A Note on Mr. Mark McCutcheon and the gathering multitude of other belated scribes of his <'google group'> generated genre):
Enter 'McCutcheon, physically accelerating universe' in google: A 2002 copyrighted book entitled The Final Theory emerges, the first two chapters of which generously parallel the 48 year old published and copyrighted, small press hard cover history of the (previously unanticipated) *accelerating universe (*enter in google) proved to prevail within the following dissertation <herein>. The Author of 'The Final Theory', one Mark McCutcheon, apparently alleges not to have heard of or been influenced by the featured dynamic of this near half century aged work, which was published on the net 12/'99. Within and after chapter two of The Final Theory, Mr. McCutcheon goes on to further proclaim that there is no gravity, that Newton and Einstein were wrong <they did make some well known mistakes, many of which they clarified awareness of>, and that 'his work' is 'The Final Theory'.
After re-writing the unprecedented nexus of my book in the first two chapters of his, Mr. McCutcheon plods waywardly on into what he calls the 'rethinking of our scientific legacy'... The reader may only draw his or her own conclusions. This author looks forward to a growing success for Mr. McCutcheon and 'his work' <or any like it>, the archived key ingredients of which will inevitably find their way back to their point of origin, under the widely distributed knowledge of tens of thousands of readers and the originally copyrighted authorship of Truly Yours, K.B.Robertson, and the title: 'Gravity Is The 4th <space-time> Dimension', 'The New Gravity'; etceteras... Literally having been written on the subway walls of New York City in the early '70's, and all over the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley <as well as on the walls of several major west coast universities> since the early-mid '70's)

The Exclusion of Politics from Science; of Ad Hominem from Empirical. Alternate title: Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism = 4th, 5th & 6th space-time Dimensions.

The 'Big Bang Theory' is wrong.
Original Extraterrestrial Physics 101. Mark McCutcheon's so called 'Final Theory' isn't final, and, major portions of the first two chapters are conspicuously paralleled directly out of 'Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (The New Gravity)', by K.B. Robertson.

To be continued (to rhubarb pi r squared?)

Regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie