[RascalPuff]

From ___________ 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 ____________ 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 ____________ 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 ___________
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 replicate 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.
_______
From _____________ 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 ____________
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 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.')

___
4/11/07
_________ 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).
On the other hand, it's becoming ever more clear - with bringing Einstein's Cosmological constant 'back into circuit' and 'evolving, much like Ptolemy's earth-centric theory was evolving into variants by adding epicycles and variants...' Yes, indeed, those were the measures fallen back upon, in a failed attempt to snatch geocentric theory from the jaws of heliocentric history... As a term, the 'big bang' started as a joke told by Fred Hoyle during a 1947 radio broadcast, it seems the Cosmological Constant is not the only issue that has returned to to the roost.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Rascal.As no one seems to have responded to this thread,thought that I would throw in my two pennence,that's inflation for you?

The big bang is an iteresting theory,interesting yes,but true,very unlikely!




regards michael.