The Big Bang's Fall From Grace

[RascalPuff]

From: Associate Professor BenTheMan To RascalPuff, 4/18/07

Rascal---

It is not clear to me that you have done anything but quote outdated references.

And, to be clear, Newton NEVER based ANYTHING on a graviton. One of the biggest problems Newton had with his own work was that he had no idea concerning what gravity actually WAS.


Sometimes you eat the bahr, and, well, sometimes he eats you. ---Anon

From RascalPuff to BenTheMan:
Dear BenTheMan:
The point of the 'outdated' references is, they're retrieved from the (steady state) trashcan and being put back on the slate. The increasingly desperate big bangers are plundering key features of what was previously abandoned (particularly the 'cosmological constant', since the recent - 1998 - discovery that the expanding universe is accelerating); while continuing on with their bankrupt (originally presented) 'big bang' , which now only vaguely resembles it's initial inception and presentation.

Enter (collectively) in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker.

Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe'.

I am fully aware of :
'The idea that matter can act at a distance across space to influence other matter is to me so great an absurdity that no man with a competent facility for thinking could ever fall into it'. - Newton, Paraphrased.

Newton, repeatedly, deliberately and emphatically clarified that 'gravity' ('the 'animus mundi') was a complete mystery to him.

Post script:
Dear Professor Ben the Man:

It is clear that your only respite is the statement of the obvious that you've extended. Thank you for your seasoned views.

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

[mkirkpatrick]

The idea of the big bang is great,however it seems to have run out of steam?




regards michael.

[neutralino]

From RascalPuff to BenTheMan:
Dear BenTheMan:
The point of the 'outdated' references is, they're retrieved from the (steady state) trashcan and being put back on the slate. The increasingly desperate big bangers are plundering key features of what was previously abandoned (particularly the 'cosmological constant', since the recent - 1998 - discovery that the expanding universe is accelerating); while continuing on with their bankrupt (originally presented) 'big bang' , which now only vaguely resembles it's initial inception and presentation.

I wouldn't call people who are following the standard model of cosmology "increasingly desperate big bangers." The cosmological constant was initially introduced into general relativity by Einstein, who was living in a time where it was presumed that the universe was static; furthermore, he assumed that the density of matter was uniform throughout the universe. However, he soon realised that his equations did not give a uniform, time independent solution for the universe. Hence, he introduced the famous "cosmological constant." A few years later, in 1929, observations were made by Hubble that the universe was not static, but in fact was expanding, and so Einstein took out this constant and (allegedly) called it the "biggest blunder of his life."

In the late '90s, more observations showed that the universe was actually accelerating in its expansion. Now, the standard theory of GR did not account for this, but theorists found that, by putting a constant back in the equations for this expanding universe in terms of GR, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could indeed be modelled.

[RascalPuff]

"In the late '90s, more observations showed that the universe was actually accelerating in its expansion. Now, the standard theory of GR did not account for this, but theorists found that, by putting a constant back in the equations for this expanding universe in terms of GR, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could indeed be modelled."
_________________________

An accelerating universe is not corroborate with a big bang beginning. Moreover, the 'original explosion' has been 'adusted' to an expanding universe with no center, which is what the Cosmo Constant - the opposite vector of impelling gravity - entails; this includes the unexpectedly discovered acceleration of the expansion.

The year he died - 1955, Einstein was back to working toward reinstatement of his 'biggest blunder' - abandoned cosmological constant and the Unified Field theory.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[neutralino]

"In the late '90s, more observations showed that the universe was actually accelerating in its expansion. Now, the standard theory of GR did not account for this, but theorists found that, by putting a constant back in the equations for this expanding universe in terms of GR, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could indeed be modelled."
_________________________

An accelerating universe is not corroborate with a big bang beginning.

Why not?

Moreover, the 'original explosion' has been 'adusted' to an expanding universe with no center, which is what the Cosmo Constant - the opposite vector of impelling gravity - entails; this includes the unexpectedly discovered acceleration of the expansion.

I don't understand this. What do you mean by "the original explosion has been adjusted to an expanding universe?" The standard big bang theory that we speak of today never talks of explosion from a point, and never talks of a centre of the universe.

[RascalPuff]

"The standard big bang theory that we speak of today...."
Quote, neutralino:
"I don't understand this. What do you mean by "the original explosion has been adjusted to an expanding universe?" The standard big bang theory that we speak of today never talks of explosion from a point, and never talks of a centre of the universe."
__________________________________________________ ________________

"The standard big bang theory that we speak of today...."

Is not the standard big bang theory as it was originally submitted, LCDM - LambdaColdDarkMatter has been added to the equation, since the discovery of the accelerating universe in 96 (Which I predicted in '59) - Lambda being Einstein's Cosmological Constant, and Cold Dark Matter being hypothetical smoke and mirrors.

Explosive beginnings don't accelerate, whereas, the opposite vector of gravitational force does accelerate with increased distance.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie