Okay, perhaps I should have qualified that with, “In its original incarnation…” And OK, I did exaggerated a wee-bit. But if we were keeping score:

In its original incarnation, BBT predicted chaotic expansion, like a core-collapse SN remnant. Instead, it is highly uniform. The Horizon problem. Strike-one. Iioi, BBT predicted that the expansion should either quickly fly apart to near-zero density, like a bomb going off in space, or matter should quickly fall back together, like the dreaded asteroid heading our way that we blast apart with a bomb, only to have it lump back together. Instead, the expansion is “perfectly balanced” between these “more likely” outcomes, like a pencil on end. The Flatness problem. Strike-two. The Singularity Problem: the SP is actually BBT's Ground Assumption. Every theory has to have a Ground Assumption. Technically, it is not a wrong prediction. Ball-one. The missing magnetic monopoles: only in some versions. Ball-two. The ancient galaxy problem: Well, they could have formed real quickly… It was a foul ball, in the stands, and the fan did interfer, but because the fan did not reach into the field-of-play, it is not fan interference. Count remains, 2-and-2. Iioi, BBT predicted the expansion should be slowing down. Instead, it is speeding up. Complete swing and a miss. Strike-three. Hit by dark energy, calls the ump, take a base.

And Pleeeese… The reference to the cosmology petition was not meant to say, “See this petition? Its signed by a bunch of people so it must be right!" The point is, I am not completely alone in thinking the theory should have been out on strike three. (And to encourage people to sign it. )

I am well aware that these “historic” deficiencies have been rectified in the current model. Talk.origins does an excellent job of summarizing the current thinking, and putting it “all in one place.” Thank you.

To quote, “When Einstein first tried to (apply GR to the whole universe), he found that it predicted the universe should either expand or contract.” This was pre-dark energy. If you think about that statement for a moment, you realize you could ask a contestant on the Cash Cab show: “Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicts that the universe will either expand or contact. Which of these two options is the universe actually doing, expanding or contracting?” The clueless-contestant could flip a coin. Heads, its expanding…[coin-flip]…heads it is! Yeah! Got it right!

When the expansion was accepted as fact, it was quickly appreciated, likewise, that the expansion could be either speeding up or slowing down. Actually measuring which way it was changing was out of reach at the time, but people highly qualified to do such calculations set about calculating it. And it was unanimous. All twelve (someone once said, “Only twelve people in the world really understand GR”) agreed: tails, it should be slowing down. Final answer: the expansion should be slowing down. Then in 1998, Perlmutter et al made history by finally measuring which way it was going, and the observations said: heads again! (What are the odds? ) The expansion is speeding up!

I do not know where the pre-dark energy model went wrong, and I do not have to show that the present BBT is in error. All I know is the original modelers, “highly qualified to do such calculations,” had about six decades to check and recheck their math, before the measurement could actually be made, and they had a 50-50 chance of getting it right…and they got it wrong.

And I should read up on GR?

Let me draw an analogy here. When I was going to school (Berkeley —where else? and why would I specifically mention Perlmutter?—in the late 70s), I was taught in chemistry that the Casimir effect could be explained in terms of electrostatics, the same thing that holds a piece of dust to a vertical pane of glass. You just assume that electrical charge is not perfectly smoothly distributed around the molecules, and that it randomly fluctuates, and it follows from these two assumptions that dust will stick to the glass, and the plates in the Casimir experiment will be pulled together. Two completely different models--random charge fluctuation and virtual particles popping in and out of existance--yield the same result. What does this mean?

It means that if I were trying to shoot-down virtual particles (which I am not, but if I were trying to), and to prove that "electrostatics" was the correct explanation, I would have have to show where the virtual particle assumption is wrong. And I would have to justify the randomly-fluctuating-charge-distribution assumption as superior. Because if you examine the assumptions carefully, both are somewhat ad-hoc and arbitray, yet they both yield the correct answer. But such is not the presenet case. The "pros" had their chance (with not-bad odds), and they got it wrong.

What I do have to do is show that GR, in its original incarnation, sans dark energy, predicts that OUR universe, the one we have come to know and love, should expand. But that's not all. I must also show that the expansion should accelerate. Gotta' make both shots.

That I will do. In the next post. Unless there are more objections.

Since I cannot identify the error in the original prediction that had the expansion slowing down instead of speeding up, I suppose it is unfair to expect readers here to identify a mistake in my reasoning, unless I made a real blunder (has happened). But, the BAUT reader will have two models to choose from: The BBT, nicely outlined in talkorigins; and DEILE, to be summarized here, shortly, in a few days. The reader can then decide which theory "to buy."

Now does that seem fair?