Science Forums 2

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Except that this description of the history of cosmology is pure fantasy. Lemaitre came up with the mathematics to describe the current model in the 1920s. People had been analyzing the models involved for decades. The change to cosmology did not overturn the majority of previous work in the field and meshed with other empirical tests.

Check out some more press clipping from 2001.

Brave New Cosmos: Making Sense of Modern Cosmology: Plan B for the Cosmos: “New discoveries have challenged long-held theories about the evolution of the universe…cosmic expansion is accelerating…an idea once considered laughable, even after a few beers…an odd kind of energy known as quintessence…we have been missing most of the story…The bulk is a ubiquitous “dark energy” with a strange and remarkable feature: its gravity does not attract. It repels. Whereas gravity pulls… The universe is a battleground between two tendencies, and repulsive gravity is winning… Where does the energy come from? Such energy is a venerable notion that dates back to Albert Einstein and his attempt in 1917 to construct a static model of the universe…he had to introduce vacuum energy…These concepts may sound strange…a serious flaw…That seems bizarre… Extrapolating back in time, vacuum energy gets even more paradoxical…our universe was the size of a grapefruit…that seems ludicrous to expect from the real world. This need for almost supernatural fine-tuning is the principle motivation for considering alternatives to the cosmological constant… Over the long term, all of us will be left to ponder the profound implications of these revolutionary discoveries. They lead to a sobering new interpretation of our place in cosmic history… Most researchers, however, had a real distaste for the cosmological constant. Now the majority accept it, or its allied concept, quintessence… Could the enthusiasm generated by inflation and its offshoots conceal a monstrous error?” (Scientific American Jan. 2001 Vol. 284 p. 37, 54, 58)

I would say my description of the SN events is mild in comparison.


CC