On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 8:17 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:

*It started to accelerate, OR was already accelerating 5 billion years ago,
> and then accelerated more?*


*Not counting the period of inflation which only lasted a tiny fraction of
a nanosecond, during the first 9 billion years of the universe's existence
its expansion was decelerating, but then about 5 billion years ago things
changed and it started to accelerate for reasons that I have already
mentioned.  *

*> This is important for your argument, but I've never heard that before *


*You have just confirmed something that I have long suspected, you do not
read my posts because I've certainly mentioned it before.  Below are the
original articles announcing the discovery made independently by two teams
back in 1998 that they both received Nobel prizes for.*


*Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a
Cosmological Constant <https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9805201>*


*MEASUREMENTS OF Ω  FROM 42 HIGH-REDSHIFT SUPERNOVAE
<https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/307221/pdf>*

>
>

> *> Dark Energy may or may not exist,*


*Dark energy is the name we have given to whatever is accelerating the
universe, we had to call it something. The universe is definitely
accelerating so Dark Energy, whatever it is, definitely exists.  *

 * > **if it does and is responsible for the speeding up, it doesn't imply
> the galaxies were receding from each other slowly before DE speeded the
> expansion.*


*Huh?  If you make a thing move faster then you make it move faster. And
the great thing about tautologies is that they are ALWAYS true. *

*> Actually, sometimes even in pure mathematics we can't always reach
> absolute conclusions, a good example of which is the CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS.
> AG *
>

*But it has been proven you can assume  that the continuum hypothesis is
true or you can assume that the continuum hypothesis is not true, but
neither assumption will produce a contradiction to existing mathematics. It
doesn't matter, so to my mind that indicates that the continuum hypothesis
is just not very important. *

*  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*

f8q

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0zoteby2OeQV%3D6Eq28BGwjfbwtLYvUicrZoA2KoXxgLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to