Dark energy is real, say "astronomers"

John, something about red shift and steady state universe just does not work for me. How does it work for you?
____________

John, I really like Doppler.
____________

The Big Bang theory does not rest on redshift but on the cosmic microwave background, detected in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson, and successively analyzed by the COBE satellite. It is an observable effect, foreseen by George Gamow. "Theory determines what can be observed", said Albert Einstein.
Tullio
Incidentally, the Hubble Space Telescope has just imaged a galaxy born 600 million years after the Big Bang by the Gravitational Lensing effect due to General Relativity. This is the most distant galaxy ever seen.
____________

The doppler effect is real. A moving source that is going away from an observer will show a shift to lower frequencies (red end of the spectrum so to speak). I would expect that the Galaxies are expanding and generally rushing away from each other. They should be slowing now in their expansion due to the effect of what we call gravity.

Instead they appear to be accelerating which would suggest a force or energy that is somehow emanating from free space. This is what defies our current understanding and prompts one to think about the possibility of another explanation or that the original premise of acceleration is false. For my money a better premise would be that there is another much more massive , encompassing universe just beyond our vision that is attracting our universe due to gravity.

The cosmic background map has been used as a dis-prover of the "tired light theory". For me I would want to linger a little longer on trying to see what else would cause a frequency shift in light before admitting to dark energy.

If the Big Bang was ever supposed to have happened, where is its starting place or location in space?

Can we assume or derive that space expanded or inflated from a singular point in a currently defined three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional, for that matter) and that such a creation point could possibly be traced back to the starting point when it comes to its position?

Being an observer on the ground, I only have the option of looking at the sky either with the naked eye, or possibly using binoculars. In fact, when returning to bed last night, I was surprised at the appearance of Venus in the eastern sky. It definitely was not Jupiter already at first glance.

The sky initially was quite cloudy, so identifying the stars that were visible was at first a little difficult. A little later on, Castor and Pollux in Gemini as well as Aldebaran in Taurus became visible. Also Jupiter was visible very high up so it was not that planet.

But as far as I am able to see things, the position of objects against their general background position have changed somewhat in recent years. Definitely presession is noticeable when having 20-25 year experience at watching the skies.

Ya know. It seems to me that we may have it backwards. It is said that the farthest away galaxies are receding the fastest. Well the farthest away galaxies are showing us what happened 13 billion years ago or thereabouts. That long ago, things were traveling faster than now due to the energy of the big bang and gravity did not have enough time to slow them down.

What's wrong with my thinking ??

Nothing. In the "inflationary universe" by Alan Guth, MIT professor, things were happening much faster than in the subsequent times.
Tullio
____________

If the Big Bang was ever supposed to have happened, where is its starting place or location in space?

Can we assume or derive that space expanded or inflated from a singular point in a currently defined three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional, for that matter) and that such a creation point could possibly be traced back to the starting point when it comes to its position?

Being an observer on the ground, I only have the option of looking at the sky either with the naked eye, or possibly using binoculars. In fact, when returning to bed last night, I was surprised at the appearance of Venus in the eastern sky. It definitely was not Jupiter already at first glance.

The sky initially was quite cloudy, so identifying the stars that were visible was at first a little difficult. A little later on, Castor and Pollux in Gemini as well as Aldebaran in Taurus became visible. Also Jupiter was visible very high up so it was not that planet.

But as far as I am able to see things, the position of objects against their general background position have changed somewhat in recent years. Definitely presession is noticeable when having 20-25 year experience at watching the skies.

Johnny your explanation flies in the face of every observation made since Edwin Hubble pointed his new telescope into the night sky. I don't necessarily believe current astrophysicists have gotten everything figured out but I think they are basically on the right track. The fact that I don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.
____________
Bob DeWoody

I said Johnney is a good storyteller and he agreed with me. He keeps us in suspense for his revelations, but they never come, and, in my humble opinion, they will never come.
Tullio
____________