Dear BenTheMan:
The point of the 'outdated' references is they're retrieved from the trashcan and being put back on the slate. The increasingly desperate big bangers are plundering key features of what was previously abandoned; 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. 
   The animus mundi.
A complete mystery to Newton, who repeatedly, deliberately and emphatically clarified that 'gravity' was a complete mystery to him.
  It is clear that your only respite is the statement of the obvious  that you've extended. Thank you for your seasoned views.

"There once was a young lady named Bright, who moved much faster than light. She departed one day in a relative way and returned on the previous night'. - Eric Buller - 1923

Last edited by RascalPuff (2007-04-20 05:02:48)

Dear BenTheMan:
I am not sure what you mean by the abbreviation LCDM, so I can't say whether I disagree with it or not.

The title for one of my works is: 'The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Cosmological (Steady State) Constant.'

In response to your question of what my point is in all of this: it's becoming increasingly apparent that the exemplary big bang proponents are borrowing solutions to developing information by way of the functional reinstatement of the (allegedly shelved) resolutions of the cosmological constant. I see the reinstatement but I do not hear anything about what amounts to the functional return - the reinstatement and application - of what was formerly abandoned.

The newly innovated terminology of 'dark matter' and 'quintessence' seems to be the development of a new vocabulary for what you - and others - regard as 'outdated'.

It is my observation that the issued big bang proponents, who have boldly flourished the 'cosmological constant', and 'lambda' in those words (Enter in google, 'Einstein was right after all - maybe', and collectively enter Cosmological Constant  Lambda  expanding universe  big bang  acceleration  red shift  dark energy  Friedmann  Lemaitre  Robertson  Walker ), are remiss in acknowledging that the previously extinctified principles have - after all - returned to repair the issued, newly emerged, otherwise unexplained phenomena - particularly the increasingly apparent fact of the acceleration of the expanding universe.
Einstein's abandoned CC and Lambda are overtly retrieved from the trash container and back into service - such action revealing an element of intrigue and duplicity on the part of the big bang school, which apparently intends to unflinchingly proceed with business as usual. 

    As though the purloining and reactivation of the 'out dated'  references did not happen and is not happening as the - notably bold - egress for the otherwise out dated big bang advocates.
   My 45+ year aged work documents the previously unrecognized accelerating expansion of the physical as well as spatial universe, and in so doing, discards any need for the spontaneous creation of Hydrogen to compensate for what is otherwise the steady state's dilemma - how the occurrence of universal entities can remain uniform and not dissipate or thin out in what proves to be a spatially expanding universe. 

Presently you haven't had the opportunity to consider or evaluate my proposed solution to the steady state theory's problem, whereas, you are a representatively unblinking witness to the adoption of the - in effect - reinstated cosmological constant Lambda, which, until further notice is being considered as accounted for in 'dark energy' and/or 'quintessence'.

    Incidentally, with regard to your statement that 'Einstein didn't believe in the cosmological constant' - he was back to working on it at Princeton before he died in May of 1955...

   I presume you mean Newton in alluding to a reference that is 'four hundred years old' - whereas Isaac Newton - understandably for his time - highlights a reference to 'particles', which have yet to be established as such, emerging instead as charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries; omnidirectionally projecting electromagnetism in quantified units with the dualistic qualities of both particle and wave characteristics.

   Your shoulder shrugging posture of what the point is in all this is, emulates the sang froid distancing of the big bang school from its markedly schizoid transition to a school of the cosmological constant, by any other name.

It is the studied station of this record to submit that the steady state theory is on its way back to applied Standard Theory as well; by reason of the premise that corporeal matter as well as space is included in the accelerating expansion of the universe, which, so far, doesn't appear to be dissipating, after all.
Thank you for reading this missive. 

(Post script: I am unsure if it's acceptable to convey links to non commercial forums. Perhaps you can let me know. If it's permissable for me to forward my forum address to you and others who may take interest, I will be happy to do so; that you may draw - and perhaps respond with - your own conclusions.)

DearBenTheMan:
Indeed, modern scientists are good at admitting they got their ideas from places - like the abbreviation LCDM - LambdaColdDarkMatter. I did say they purloined the discarded cosmological constant and then reinstated it. Not knowing the current abbreviation is a technicality. I think the incumbent dumpster divers feel better with the abbreviation rather than saying 'Lambda'. Uh huh.

  I've said all that needs to be said on the issues as far as I'm concerned. You may call them 'irrelavant notes'. You may call them anything you wish to call them. The statements I made in the post previous to this one sustains all that I wanted to say.
Not only is there a cosmological constant lambda reinstated universe, the steady state universe prevails and is well on the way to being confirmed. Past is prologue in this case as well.

There once was a lady named Bright, who moved much faster than light, she departed one day in a relative way and returned on the previous night.

Rascal, you repeatedly post incoherent diatribes and I keep asking you to either form them into articles and submit them for the front page, or shorten them into points for meaningful discussion.

If you want to challenge LCDM, then by all means do so. If you have evidence for a "steady state" universe possessing a cosmological constant, then please present it.

Otherwise what is your point here other than spam?

OK, so you are just crazy. Now I understand.

In your world, quotes from Google and lyrics from Jimi Hendrix songs constitute experimental data and/or mathematical models.

Where you aware that existence is a 4D time cube? Google: "time cube".

Chris wrote:

OK, so you are just crazy. Now I understand.

In your world, quotes from Google and lyrics from Jimi Hendrix songs constitute experimental data and/or mathematical models.

Where you aware that existence is a 4D time cube? Google: "time cube".

________________________________

Dear Chris, regarding your construance of 4-D existence as being a time cube (the way it is generally and mistakenly misrepresented).

Whereas, this is what Buckminster Fuller has to say about your posted dogma:

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis (*sic) does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists (*sic) in mathematics (*as opposed to the fact that an exact definition does exist in geometry, and, whereby mathematics is by routine academic-scientific standards, authoritatively based).

   "The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geomentrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so.
   "Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'Plane And Solid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics. We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside  of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'. - R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17

Regards,
- RP

As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:

   I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:

“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."

That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'

It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.

It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force.   That is fact #1.

Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied?

That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.

The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states:
'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown').