[RascalPuff]

New information keeps coming in that finds the 'Big Bang' universe not only to be expanding, but to be picking up speed. A 'Big Bang' originated universe isn't supposed to be doing that. Whereas, that's exactly what a physically accelerating 'Steady State' universe does.
This work is all about the reasons why. Like the Unified Field theory, the 'Steady State' theory is abandoned. The reasons for their reinstatement are accumulating...

Einstein's 'Abandoned' Cosmological Constant

"It is very odd that the theory of gravity, originated by Newton and completed by Einstein, should stand now in majestic isolation, a Taj Mahal of Science, having little of anything to do with the rapid developments in other branches of physics. Einstein's concept of the gravitational field grew from his Special Theory of Relativity, and the Special Theory was based on the Theory of the Electromagnetic Field formulated in the last century by the British physicist, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79). But in spite of many attempts, Einstein and those who have followed him have failed any (gravitational) contact with Maxwell's electrodynamics... "Einstein's theory of gravitation was more or less contemporary with quantum theory, but in the forty-five years since they appeared, the two theories have had quite different rates of development. Proposed by Max Planck and carried forward by the work of Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, and others, quantum theory has made colossal progress and evolved into a broad discipline that explains in detail the inner structures of atoms and their nuclei." - Gamow, GRAVITY

"On the other hand, Einstein's theory of gravity remains to this day essentially as it was when he formulated it half a century ago. While hundreds, even thousands, of scientists study the various branches of quantum theory and apply it in many, many fields of experimental research, only a few persist in devoting their time and passion to further development in the study of gravitation. Can it be that empty space is simpler than material bodies? Or did the genius of Einstein accomplish everything that could be done about gravity in our time and so deprive a generation of the hope of further progress?" - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 136.

"The combination of the concept of continuous field with that of mass-points discontinuous from space appears inconsistent. A consistent (total) field theory requires continuity of all elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points in space. Hence the material particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 345

"It is very probable that there is a hidden relation between gravity on the one hand and the electromagnetic field and material particles on the other, but nobody is prepared today to say what kind of relation it is. And there is no way of foretelling how soon any further important progress will be made in this direction." - Excerpted from the Preface to GRAVITY, by George Gamow.

"Big Bang', 'SuperStrings', 'Dark matter', 'Quintessence' and 'New Age' etceteras,

versus the 'out dated' Cosmological Constant, Lambda /\
(A repelling force, unlike any known other, in that it becomes greater with increased distance. Re: acceleration.)

“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...
“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.

“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270

The ('red shift') ‘expanding universe’ took the ‘scientific community’ by surprise in 1927 - 1929.
. An - ad hoc - explanation was hurriedly put together by Lemaitre, Gamow, and others - if the expansion of space in the universe was back tracked, it was reasoned, it would eventually converge at a point of intersection (since estimated to have been some 13 billion years ago), where all the matter in the universe must have been compacted, causing intense pressures and heat which resulted in and caused the ‘big bang’ explosion, resulting in the spatially expanding universe, as it is spectroscopically (‘red shift’) observed today. There are more recent variations on this theme, but the described dynamics are the origin of the ‘Big Bang’ perspective.
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.
It is the signature of a repelling force acting across space out of all material bodies, paralleling all the characteristics of conventional gravity, while acting in the opposite direction. Namely, what Einstein called ‘the cosmological constant’ - a force unlike any other known, because it increased - instead of decreased - with distance.

Einstein’s Unified Field theory of 1919 predicted an expanding universe - a prediction that Wilem de Sitter foresaw (in Einstein’s equations) as early as 1917. A decade before the expanding universe was spectroscopically discovered between 1912 and 1922, by, Dr. Vesto M. Silpher, and translated in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, and 1929 by Edwin Hubble as proof of a spatially expanding universe, observing (by way of spectroscopic ‘red shift’) that the speed of a receding galaxy increases with distance (‘Hubble’s "red shift").

Einstein - under much influence by Wilem de Sitter - had predicted an expanding universe, and that it is the result of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, just like gravity, except, in the opposite direction. This is the force that Einstein proposed prevented the universe (full of mutually impelling bodies) from collapsing on itself - a problem that Newton himself called attention to, for which there was no previous explanation.

When the spatially expanding universe was discovered, it was resolved that this explained why the universe didn’t collapse on itself, and for this reason, under much ensuing controversy, Einstein was persuaded to abandon his previously submitted Cosmological Constant repelling force....
Recent data is accumulating, finding that the spatial universe is not only expanding, but that it is also picking up - increasing in - rate of speed of expansion. Again, this is not the signature of a big bang originated universe, whereas, it is the signature of the abandoned Cosmological Constant: a force which increases with distance...

It is well known that Einstein abandoned his Cosmological Constant repelling force (designated with the Greek sign ‘Lambda’ - an inverted V, like this /\ ; calling it his ‘biggest blunder’ ), due to the discovery of the spatially expanding universe. It is not so well known that Einstein went back to working on his formerly abandoned unified field - cosmological constant - theory, at Princeton, before he died in 1955.

Besides the ‘red shift’ established expanding universe, there is one other evidentiary phenomenon in particular, which is said to support (if not ‘prove’) the big bang ‘theory’, and that is the issue of cosmic microwave background radiation predicted in 1949 by George Gamow and (inadvertently) confirmed (via satellite) in 1963, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. Whereas, what is proven by the observed background radiation is that the universe as we know it was more dense and hotter in earlier moments that in the present. The 'Big Bang' interpretation does not have a monopoly on this translation. Any model of an expanding universe yields the same observation (That the universe was more dense and hotter in the past than in the present). This work - the reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified <Steady State> Field theory - represents such an alternative explanation)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinstinGroupie