More Data Cogent to the Incumbent Issue (BigBangology & Popbottle rockets)
Dear Reader: please note that there was formal, academic dialogue referring to an
accelerating universe, fully twenty years before it was finally big 'news'...
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.)
Revisionary BB Politics - 11-11-2007, 05:22 PM (Posted by K. B. Robertson <RascalPuff – ‘RP’>, on ToeQuest)
Recently in this Theory of Everything internet enclave, the following - exemplary - excerpt was included – in bold red lettering - in a post by the unarguably venerable neutralino (is a Ph.D in physics):
"Note that nowhere in the BB theory does it state 'the universe exploded into existence', or in fact anything to do with explosions!!"
This conceptual posturing is merely an example of the fact that the big bang theory has evolved from it's inception as a 'beginning explosion', into a Standard Theorist bunker of denials that any 'original explosion' commenced what is now popularly referenced as 'The Expanding Universe'.
Proclamations that there is no original explosion associated with the big bang theory have become the status quo. When someone proclaims or implies otherwise, they are promptly described as a 'novice', and 'corrected', as exemplified by the above quoted statement by neutralino.
This controversy leads to the question of where the big bang theory originated, and, how it was described.
Here is the google acquired answer to that question…
http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0022.html
“In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae — exploding stars visible over great distances — to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing — a discovery which has since “shaken astronomy to its core” (Astronomy, October 1999).“This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on “a day without yesterday. “After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists — including the mathematician Stephen Hawking — predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre’s contention that the Big Bang was in fact “a day without yesterday.” When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.”
----------------------------------------
Neutralino's response:
Re: Revisionary BB Politics - 11-11-2007, 06:38 PM
“Ok I'm ready to eat a tiny slice of humble pie now, RP. My response that you've quoted in red (because it was originally quoted in red) is not correct. I can't remember saying that last night, and have no idea why I would do, but I did (I checked).
So here's my stance on the big bang. Many people say that there was an "explosion" at some point in space, or that the universe was created from a single point in space. This, clearly, is incorrect (since the universe consists of the spacetime of the universe).
However, one can say that there was an explosion that created spacetime and that is why the universe is expanding in the way we see today. The important things to notice are that firstly, this explosion did not take place in a specific point in spacetime, since this would imply a centre, which contradicts the cosmological principle. Secondly, we note that we cannot run the clock back to time zero and see an infinitely dense point of matter. Thirdly, this explosion is not like any explosion that we would imagine. When we think of explosions, we think of fragments of something being thrown further into space. However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.)
Anyway, talking about explosions, whilst technically not incorrect, gets confusing. I would much rather take the stance that the big bang theory states that the universe was once far more dense than it is today.
So, I apologise to you, RascalPuff, and to anyone else who read my incorrect views.
[As an aside, in future it may be better to get a reference from a non-catholic source if discussing workings and successes of a catholic priest!]”
-----------------------------------------
The reversionary transition came about, because there is no common center from which the expanding universe, recedes. The dynamic structure of the expanding universe is such, that the recession of light sources is moving directly away from the observer, in direct line of sight, no matter what location the expansion is observed. 'The center is everywhere'. This is not the dynamic signature of an explosion - especially when it is learned that the expansion is proceeding ever faster: accelerating.
On the other hand the described dynamics are the signature of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, 'just like gravity', except, in the opposite direction. Refer, 'the Cosmological Constant'.