On Friday, August 29, 2025 at 8:07:55 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
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. * *Do us all a big favor and cease your BS'ing. Those articles below I haven't read because they assert what I already knew; that two teams discovered the universe was accelerating in 1998. Where is the EVIDENCE in your claim above, that the rate of expansion was SLOWING from the time the galaxies formed, for about 9 billion years? I don't recall any of your posts where you stated or proved that. AG * * 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. * *Obviously, you don't understand what I wrote, and it's certainly not a tautology. AG * *> 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. * *What's "important" here is in the mind of mathematicans. And IMO you've misstated the result. AG* * 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/433bca00-cb03-426f-97ee-404523357251n%40googlegroups.com.
