Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Mister Earl]

Take the whole quantum weirdness. The whole "It could be here, not here, and both here AND not here" bit. You don't see that at macroscopic levels. I've never leaned against a wall and suddenly had a quantum-tunneling event and suddenly found myself inside of somebody's house. I think cosmic expansion is like that. It's only really observable at pan-galactic levels. Around here gravity kind of drowns it out, so any tests you do here that would try to measure the extremely minute expansions going on at our level would be drowned out by other processes. Heck, I think even plain old brownian motion would make expansion imperceptible in any laboratory experiment. But we can see that not only are galaxies recede from each other, they're doing so at a faster rate. If it isn't expansion of some kind, what is it? What other mechanisms do you think can account for that?

 

[Mister Earl]

It's evidently a lot more complicated than they realize.

If you've been following this conversation (it's actually taken place in a lot of different threads now), they've been trying to suggest that the EM field *CANNOT* cause 'negative pressure" and it is therefore ruled out as 'dark energy'. They however turn right around and cite the Casimir effect as an example of 'negative pressure in a vacuum". The Casimir effect however is directly related to the EM field since plastics don't attract or repulse like metals.

Now Mister Earl, they can claim EM fields *CAN* cause "negative pressure", or they can claim they don't, but they can't have it both ways. Which is it?

Again, I'm a layman. But here's my understanding of it. Vacuum energy has something to do with virtual particles. These particles exist at the quantum level, and appear in oppositely charged pairs. They exist for the tiniest fraction of a second before annihilating each other, releasing energy. I've heard the term quantum foam, and I think this is in reference to this. Now, I think the casimir effect has to do with the foam: On the outside of the plates, there's more "foam" coming in to the universe, creating a tiny pressure. Between the plates, there's less space and less "foam" going on, so it experiences a negative pressure. The result is the plates are pulled together.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's how I understand it:

1.) Something caused the universe to expand at superluminal speeds at the beginning of time.

You made two assumptions in that one statement that I would not automatically make, A) that "superluminal" expansion happened and that there was a "beginning of time'. Both of these are "assumptions".

2.) Something is causing the universe to expand.

Ok. I'll go with that. Note that this (and the acceleration) are actually 'subjective interpretations" of the redshift phenomenon.

3.) The speed of the expansion is accelerating.

Ok.

4.) The cause of the above is hypothesized, but unknown. (With the exception of #1)

Ya, but we don't even necessarily agree on 1. Have you ever read Alfven's "Bang" theory? Nothing actually collected to a "singular clump" and it wasn't so much a "creation event" as a "cyclical process". I can try to round you up a link to his paper in a bit. I have to do a little work first.

5.) It would have taken, and still take, massive amounts of energy to cause the universe to continue to expand.

We also know that the *MOST* likely "cause" of plasma "expansion/acceleration" is the EM field.

6.) The source or mechanism of this energy is not observable.

Is the source or mechanism of solar wind acceleration observable?

7.) Placeholder term "Dark Energy" used to reference this process.

It's more than that however. They created a mythical negative pressure entity too.

8.) Hypothetical expansion processes created that make predictions to be confirmed or refuted.

If we changed the placeholder term for a second it becomes indistinguishable from magic, or from religion. Predictions based on invisible rabbits really aren't that impressive.

9.) Confirmation or nonconfirmation strengthens or weakens various each hypothesis.

The problem is that they "sky god" makes not empirical predictions on Earth to actually 'test'. It's only use seems to be related to their one theory.

10.) Bit by bit, our understanding of the universe improves.

I don't see how inventing a negative pressure deity has improved out understanding of the universe. Why do they even begin with the assumption that the universe is a closed system in the first place?

Where do you see a problem in any of that? How would you do it different?

FYI, we actually parted company at number 1. I can't go back in time to see exactly what happened. I have no idea if the 'bang' as a creation oriented thing, or a cyclical process of some kind. I really can't make a lot of prophetic claims about the past. If however something *IS* causing acceleration NOW, they we should be able to "explain' it with "real" forces of nature, not sky gods that only do things "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Take the whole quantum weirdness. The whole "It could be here, not here, and both here AND not here" bit. You don't see that at macroscopic levels. I've never leaned against a wall and suddenly had a quantum-tunneling event and suddenly found myself inside of somebody's house. I think cosmic expansion is like that. It's only really observable at pan-galactic levels. Around here gravity kind of drowns it out, so any tests you do here that would try to measure the extremely minute expansions going on at our level would be drowned out by other processes. Heck, I think even plain old brownian motion would make expansion imperceptible in any laboratory experiment. But we can see that not only are galaxies recede from each other, they're doing so at a faster rate. If it isn't expansion of some kind, what is it? What other mechanisms do you think can account for that?

Well, for one I would start by dropping the "assumption" that the universe is "closed", and look at the possibility that matter/charge is attracted to matter/charge that is external to this physical universe. IMO there whole need for a negative pressure mythical energy is directly related to that one assumption.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again, I'm a layman. But here's my understanding of it. Vacuum energy has something to do with virtual particles. These particles exist at the quantum level, and appear in oppositely charged pairs. They exist for the tiniest fraction of a second before annihilating each other, releasing energy. I've heard the term quantum foam, and I think this is in reference to this. Now, I think the casimir effect has to do with the foam: On the outside of the plates, there's more "foam" coming in to the universe, creating a tiny pressure. Between the plates, there's less space and less "foam" going on, so it experiences a negative pressure. The result is the plates are pulled together.

Just so, our physical universe can be "pulled toward" something external to it. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If the EM field *CAN* produce "negative pressure' then they can't automatically "rule it out" whenever they feel like it. There can't have it both ways. If we accept that the Casimir effect *is* an example of negative pressure in a vacuum, then they can't rule out the EM field as "dark energy". It's not actually an example of negative pressure, just a "pressure difference", in which case they *MIGHT* still be able to "rule out" the EM field because it's not capable of producing "negative pressure". They can only have it one way, or the other, but they can't play both sides of the same argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok. I'll go with that. Note that this (and the acceleration) are actually 'subjective interpretations" of the redshift phenomenon.

No, Michael. It's the only interpretation which is consistent with known physics. Sure, that doesn't preclude the existence of unknown physics, but you've been arguing from the start that we should always stick to what we can test in the lab and no more, so any such alternative explanations are already unacceptable to you.

Ya, but we don't even necessarily agree on 1. Have you ever read Alfven's "Bang" theory? Nothing actually collected to a "singular clump" and it wasn't so much a "creation event" as a "cyclical process".

Which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Via.... unknown and unspecified mechanisms. And you think that's an improvement on dark energy, which violates no laws of thermodynamics and no laws of conservation?

We also know that the *MOST* likely "cause" of plasma "expansion/acceleration" is the EM field.

Who is this "we"?

Everyone but you knows that gravity dominates at large scales. Crunch the numbers of you don't believe me.

Oh, that's right: you can't. You aren't capable of testing your own ideas.

Is the source or mechanism of solar wind acceleration observable?

How much of the sun's mass is in the solar wind? What force is keeping the rest of that mass from flying away with the solar wind?

It's more than that however. They created a mythical negative pressure entity too.

You don't know what it means for pressure to be negative, or what's required for that to happen. Because you don't even know what pressure is. You have never managed to provide even a definition of pressure.

If we changed the placeholder term for a second it becomes indistinguishable from magic, or from religion.

A rose by any other name...

The problem is that they "sky god" makes not empirical predictions on Earth to actually 'test'.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I don't see how inventing a negative pressure deity has improved out understanding of the universe.

Of course you don't. But the fault is your own ignorance. You don't understand the models we had prior to dark energy either.

Why do they even begin with the assumption that the universe is a closed system in the first place?

Because if it's not closed, then it's not the universe. Duh. Once again, you fail to grasp the definition of words.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

FYI, Mister Earl, here's a link to Alfven's "bang" theory. Alfven's "bang" doesn't require that everything compressed to a singular lump, and it's not a "creation event" per se, it's more of a cyclical thing.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Michael, I'm a layman at this sort of thing, and I managed to wrap my head around the idea of negative pressure. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

I have had Mozina on "ignore" for a while to take a break from his irrationality. Unfortunately, when someone quotes his text I do see the quoted parts. So, I have followed your half of this discussion and some of his comments.
Yes, it is quite possible for a layman to "wrap (ones) head around the idea of negative pressure." I have done so and I am also a layman (with a mathematics background).
I think that Mozina does not want to "wrap (his) head around" this and many other ideas. He is highly motivated not to do so since it provides him with the basis to indulge his narcissistic fantasies that he has deep insights that the experts do not have. This is his world; he is dedicated to spending a significant part of this life with this fantasy (see GeeMack's comments above about the years and extent of his efforts). Without a doubt he pummels all his unwitting friends and family with his special wisdom. Some are probably impressed, which encourages him further -- he lives for this! There is nothing you or anyone here can say or do to foster his comprehension of "dark energy," "negative pressure" and a host of other physics and cosmology concepts. HE DOES NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND! -- so he never will.
Ultimately, if you persist, he will resort to name calling, and irrational ridicule to dismiss whatever you may have to say.

 

[Mister Earl]

You made two assumptions in that one statement that I would not automatically make, A) that "superluminal" expansion happened and that there was a "beginning of time'. Both of these are "assumptions".

As I understand it, the tenets of basic physics says that physics work the same backwards in time than to do forwards. If we take the velocities of all galaxies we currently see, and run them back in time, they originate from what seems to be a single point. I wouldn't call that a blind assumption. As far as the beginning of time goes, maybe it wasn't. Maybe brane theory is right, and the universe is cyclic. Time (and scientific testing) will tell.

Ok. I'll go with that. Note that this (and the acceleration) are actually 'subjective interpretations" of the redshift phenomenon.

Subjective, how? Does light change speeds?

Ya, but we don't even necessarily agree on 1. Have you ever read Alfven's "Bang" theory? Nothing actually collected to a "singular clump" and it wasn't so much a "creation event" as a "cyclical process". I can try to round you up a link to his paper in a bit. I have to do a little work first.

I think the current idea in mainstream science is that, by running time backwards, everything in our observable universe goes to a single point. At that point current physics break down. Time becomes irrelevant. That could be wrong, sure, but it'd take a lot of work to come up with a workable and testable hypothesis on that point. That's where teh brane theory guys are at, I assume. But as it's currently understood, time started there, as well as space dimensions. And the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. There's no before. Like the whole "What's north of the north pole?" bit.

We also know that the *MOST* likely "cause" of plasma "expansion/acceleration" is the EM field.

My understanding is that the fabric of space is stretching, and the higgs field has something to do with it.

Is the source or mechanism of solar wind acceleration observable?

Not sure how that applies to universal expansion. Do you have something that tells you its the same mechanism? I'd like to hear your details on it!

It's more than that however. They created a mythical negative pressure entity too.

Here's my understanding of it. Let's say you have a one dimensional graph. Let's call it the X axis. Our dot is sitting there at 29. It took 29 "x" pressure to blow it down that line for it to be sitting where it is. Now, we throw 5 pressure on the other side of it, blowing it back to 24. Is 5 a positive number? Sure. But it's negative on the X axis. Science loves to make measurements with a frame of reference. From the reference of the X axis, what happened was a negative pressure event.

If we changed the placeholder term for a second it becomes indistinguishable from magic, or from religion. Predictions based on invisible rabbits really aren't that impressive.

Nah. Let's call it "X". So it becomes, "Something we call 'X' is causing universal expansion, and the process by which it is causing this is not directly observable." That isn't magic. That's just "Name it first, figure out what it is and why the heck it's doing it next".

The problem is that they "sky god" makes not empirical predictions on Earth to actually 'test'. It's only use seems to be related to their one theory.

We don't see quantum effects at macroscopic levels, either. Scale is kind of relevant with this sort of thing, as I understand it.

I don't see how inventing a negative pressure deity has improved out understanding of the universe. Why do they even begin with the assumption that the universe is a closed system in the first place?

I don't think they'd hesitate to change their minds in an instant if some really convincing proof came along.

FYI, we actually parted company at number 1. I can't go back in time to see exactly what happened. I have no idea if the 'bang' as a creation oriented thing, or a cyclical process of some kind. I really can't make a lot of prophetic claims about the past. If however something *IS* causing acceleration NOW, they we should be able to "explain' it with "real" forces of nature, not sky gods that only do things "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to.

If there's no process we know of that can be doing it, something else must be. If we don't know what it is, so we give it a placeholder term so everybody is on the same page when we talk about it, then the hypothesizing and testing can begin.

 

[Mister Earl]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

FYI, Mister Earl, here's a link to Alfven's "bang" theory. Alfven's "bang" doesn't require that everything compressed to a singular lump, and it's not a "creation event" per se, it's more of a cyclical thing.

I'll start reading it shortly. Sounds like cyclic brane theory from your references to it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'll start reading it shortly. Sounds like cyclic brane theory from your references to it.

It certainly seems to be more akin to a cyclical brane theory than to "creation event" per se. He begins by 'assuming' the existence of matter and antimatter that contracts until the matter and antimatter interact and begin causing expansion.

 

[Ziggurat]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

FYI, Mister Earl, here's a link to Alfven's "bang" theory.

That paper is garbage for a number of reasons.

He goes on about how standard cosmology doesn't allow matter/antimatter symmetry. Since he claims that no demonstration that the universe is not symmetric, then we should consider cosmologies which allow for such symmetry. Small problem: matter/antimatter asymmetry HAS been detected, in laboratories, here on earth. A matter-dominated universe poses no real problem in this regard.

He suggests the standard interpretation of redshift may not be correct, but offers no actual alternative.

He contends that even if we accept the standard interpretation of redshift, that only means things are moving away now, but the could have started far away. This interpretation requires discarding general relativity, a proposition he offers no justification for.

And lastly, he completely ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is like ignoring Olber's paradox when positing an eternal static infinite universe. Klein's model requires violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Alfven doesn't even seem to recognize that basic fact. Talk about clueless.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As I understand it, the tenets of basic physics says that physics work the same backwards in time than to do forwards. If we take the velocities of all galaxies we currently see, and run them back in time, they originate from what seems to be a single point. I wouldn't call that a blind assumption. As far as the beginning of time goes, maybe it wasn't. Maybe brane theory is right, and the universe is cyclic. Time (and scientific testing) will tell.

I guess the key difference is that Aflven begins with both matter and antimatter before winding back the clock and they can't simply 'merge' as simple matter might merge.

Subjective, how? Does light change speeds?

Actually even I think it's the "best" interpretation at the moment, but "tired light' theories have been around for almost as long as that observation of redshift.

I think the current idea in mainstream science is that, by running time backwards, everything in our observable universe goes to a single point.

Yes, but if you begin with both matter and antimatter, that isn't likely to occur.

Nah. Let's call it "X". So it becomes, "Something we call 'X' is causing universal expansion, and the process by which it is causing this is not directly observable." That isn't magic. That's just "Name it first, figure out what it is and why the heck it's doing it next".

It gets messy and ugly however because the term "morphs" and has "specific"
ad hoc properties associated with it, like that negative pressure concept.

If there's no process we know of that can be doing it, something else must be.

Ultimately one doesn't follow the other. We can be ignorant as to the true cause, and it *could* have something to do with an already known force of nature. Our ignorance of actual cause doesn't necessarily require new forms of energy or matter, it may simply require a rearrangement of known forces of matter and energy.

If we don't know what it is, so we give it a placeholder term so everybody is on the same page when we talk about it, then the hypothesizing and testing can begin.

The term "cosmic acceleration" is a useful term. You can't kludge it. It doesn't necessarily imply any 'new" form of matter or energy, and it simply refers to the observation as an observation. By using the term 'God energy' or "dark energy" and implying these as the "cause" of the acceleration, we've create a "religion" that requires faith in the unseen (in the lab). "I don't know" is valid scientific answer. "Dark energy did it" is a "religion' that requires faith in the unseen. I have no idea what the actual "cause" might be, but "dark energy' isn't real. It can't be the empirical "cause" of anything simply by me giving my ignorance that name.

 

[Mister Earl]

Ok, regarding that paper. I see a couple of problems with it, feel free to correct me at any point:

1.) He states that the Aurora Borealis can alter the direction of a magnetic compass. Can anyone confirm this? I'd like the hows and whys, it's pretty interesting.

2.) Part 3: "A quarter of a centure ago the cosmological interest was focused on the fight between the "Continuous creation" and what was later called the "Big Bang." To both of these cosmologies a matter-antimatter symmetric universe was a disturbing concept that was important to get rid of. This was attempted by demonstrating that a homogeneous symmetric universe was out of the question, because it would be completely annihilated in a time of the order of millions of years."

As far as I understand it, the understand is that there was much, much more antimatter and matter in the very early universe. There was slightly more matter than antimatter, and after all the early annihilation, the existing matter we see today is what is left of the universe. I vaguely recall a few stories of people asking the question "why?"

3.) I see where he finally gets to the point about the beginnings of our universe... that it was a homogeonus ball of matter and antimatter vapor that was collapsing, and only when it got dense enough that annihilations became frequent enough, that the ball explosively expanded, becoming the universe today.

I can see one problem with that. The ball expands, but doesn't make space expand. It's expansion between the matter of the ball, but not expansion of the space between matter.

4.) He talks a great deal at the end about the "Prophetic approach" and the "Actualistic approach". The prophetic approach, he says, is where people invent an answer they think is right, to summarize. The actualistic approach is where people measure what something is now, and then run backwards in time.

Unfortunately, I think both of them are pretty much irrelevant. What matters is the scientific method. Regardless of what orifice a hypothesis is pulled from, if it makes predictions that can be confirmed or refuted, then it's a good start. That's how science works.

But all in all regarding the paper, Alfrin spent a lot of time whiplashing around different subjects, spent a lot of time not getting to the point, and didn't impress me too much with his rationalizations. I did think the "Alpha Centauri: Antimatter, or not?" was pretty interesting, but I didn't see what that had to do with the main topic of the paper.

 

[Mister Earl]

I don't see why antimatter and matter couldn't exist in close proximity just after the big bang. Again, my details are sketchy and likely to be wrong in places, so bear with me: All matter and space exists at a tiny point that doesn't make sense to us. Space and time don't exist yet. Matter itself couldn't exist. The four forces aren't there. It's just an amazing amount of energy. Then, something happens. Could of been a "Creation event", a "big bang", a "brane collision", heck, it could have been something as simple as an 11-dimensional vibrating loop string that got a knot in it.

Then something happens. Space and time happen. Space itself starts out tiny, but in millionths of a second, it expands at superluminal velocities. Space expanding, not anything travelling through it. The fabric of space itself isn't bound to lightspeed. The higgs field has something to do with this, and I'm certain Sol can explain the details of it far better than I can. After enough expansion, things cool down enough to where matter can condense out of the energy that's permeating this pocket of space. Since space is still really crushed together, and the matter that's condensing is so bloody thick, no radiation of any kind can permate it. At this point (Again, correct me if I'm wrong, and I likely am) the only particles that can exist are subatomic. Three of the four forces come into existance. The weak and strong nuclear forces seperate a bit later. Space continues to expand, but at a slower rate. This yanks apart the matter and lets things start to clump together. (My mental image is "The brownian motion of it all had time to settle down a bit, which I am sure is horrifically wrong at several levels!) Finally radiation can escape the "cloud". That's the primordeal big-bang echo, the cosmic backround radiation. Now, that soup wasn't perfectly symmetrical. If it were, while matter would have condensed, it never would have gravitated in any direction. Something disturbed the "soup", and the inequalities of its distrubution lead to the large-scale universal structures we see today (galatic superclusters, voids, ect).

I'm sure I made some mistakes here, but that's how I see things. As a wise man once told me, "You are generally correct, but you are specifically wrong!"

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, regarding that paper. I see a couple of problems with it, feel free to correct me at any point:

1.) He states that the Aurora Borealis can alter the direction of a magnetic compass. Can anyone confirm this? I'd like the hows and whys, it's pretty interesting.

I don't know if it happens, but if it does, it's the result of current in the aurora creating a magnetic field. Cool, but also irrelevant to cosmology.

3.) I see where he finally gets to the point about the beginnings of our universe... that it was a homogeonus ball of matter and antimatter vapor that was collapsing, and only when it got dense enough that annihilations became frequent enough, that the ball explosively expanded, becoming the universe today.

I can see one problem with that. The ball expands, but doesn't make space expand. It's expansion between the matter of the ball, but not expansion of the space between matter.

Indeed: this model is completely inconsistent with general relativity. Furthermore, unless you're at the center of that sphere (quite the coincidence, that), then the universe shouldn't look at all isotropic.

 

[Mister Earl]

Indeed: this model is completely inconsistent with general relativity. Furthermore, unless you're at the center of that sphere (quite the coincidence, that), then the universe shouldn't look at all isotropic.

It's an interesting idea, but yeah, it doesn't explain space getting stretched like taffy. I heard a more interesting idea the other day: That the universe we live in might be the inside of a black hole somewhere. I forget a lot of the arguments made in favor of it; Namely that the "horizon" we can see at the edges of the universe are the same as an event horizon, or some such idea. We're missing a giant singularity in the "middle" though. and space isn't flowing into the "Center" at superluminal speeds, so I didn't give it much credence.

 

[GeeMack]

The term 'cosmic acceleration' is a logical term for an unexplained acceleration. You can't however claim "cosmic acceleration is the cause of cosmic acceleration.' Their word games just start with the name.

Do you actually believe for some reason that your argument from incredulity and ignorance will somehow be more compelling the 143rd time you spew it as it was the first? Or maybe we should start a lot closer to what an eleven year old child would understand. Do you know what an argument from incredulity is? Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?

The problem from my perspective is that they can't explain solar wind acceleration either, and they dont' seem to 'see' the energy that is responsible for it, so should we call that "dark energy"?

In all your years of blathering about your inane crackpot conjecture, with all your lies and incredulity and ignorance, you've never once been able to assemble a cogent explanation for the solar wind. So your complete ignorance of that issue hardly supports your criticism of another issue, especially when you've demonstrated an equal level of ignorance when it comes to the theories regarding the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

But we learned earlier that it is *NOT* just a label. There are actually very "specific' ad hoc properties being assigned to it now. It's not only 'dark', it has a truly mythical form of "negative pressure" as well. When do these ad hoc properties end and when do we simply admit we're just ignorant of the empirical cause?

The ignorance is yours, Michael. You own it, wholly and completely.

Oh, and speaking of another example of your ignorance, were your heroes Bruce, Birkeland, and Alfvén liars, Michael?

 

[GeeMack]

If there's no process we know of that can be doing it, something else must be. If we don't know what it is, so we give it a placeholder term so everybody is on the same page when we talk about it, then the hypothesizing and testing can begin.

Michael actually thinks he knows. But some people are literally just too stupid to do the research and write the papers necessary to convince even one real scientist of their harebrained notions. So even if Michael knows, there isn't a professional scientist on the face of this planet who has found his incredulity, ignorance, and lies a compelling argument. Not only are Michael's crackpot conjectures completely disconnected from the mainstream, some of his notions aren't accepted as reasonable or sane by another living soul.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok, regarding that paper. I see a couple of problems with it, feel free to correct me at any point:

1.) He states that the Aurora Borealis can alter the direction of a magnetic compass. Can anyone confirm this? I'd like the hows and whys, it's pretty interesting.

Kristian Birkeland first measured this effect about 100 years ago. It's due to the current flow changes in the upper atmosphere and a compass on the ground is sensitive to such changes high above. If you're a great distance from the aurora however, you won't really notice much.

2.) Part 3: "A quarter of a centure ago the cosmological interest was focused on the fight between the "Continuous creation" and what was later called the "Big Bang." To both of these cosmologies a matter-antimatter symmetric universe was a disturbing concept that was important to get rid of.

Well, historically speaking the debate was between a static or moving (expanding or contracting) universe. According to tenets of GR, a universe dominated by gravity would either tend to expand or contract. The curvature of spacetime does not easily lend itself to a "static" or "stable' universe. Einstein briefly toyed with the idea of adding a non-zero constant into GR to (attempt) to produce a static or stable universe. Once he got wind of Hubble's findings that implied an expanding universe, he set the constant back to zero and left it that way until his death. It's only now that "dark energy" is being stuffed into that same constant of GR in order to achieve an "acceleration".

For a long time after BB become popular, it was still unclear whether the momentum of mass would cause the universe to expand forever, or whether or it would "slow down" enough over time to result in a "big crunch" at some point in the distant future. Only recently (last 20 years or so) has there been any evidence suggesting it is likely to continue to expand.

This was attempted by demonstrating that a homogeneous symmetric universe was out of the question, because it would be completely annihilated in a time of the order of millions of years."

I'm not sure where you get that idea exactly, but it need not work out that way. A lot would depend on the circumstances of the "bang' and how things 'spread apart" and in what quantities. The matter/antimatter distribution would not necessarily need to be homogeneously distributed.

I can see one problem with that. The ball expands, but doesn't make space expand.

Nothing causes "space" to expand in the lab either. Your right of course, but then that leads us back to the difference between "faith' and "empirical physics" I might have "faith" that 'space" (physically undefined I might add) somehow expands "somewhere out there", but I could never hope to empirically demonstrate that concept here on Earth.

It's expansion between the matter of the ball, but not expansion of the space between matter.

You are absolutely correct about one key issue here. There is a difference between generic "expansion" (where objects in motion stay in motion) and Lambda-CDM theory. "Spacetime" can expand as the objects in motion spread out and move further apart. "Space" however is physically undefined (in GR) and is physically incapable of "expanding".

Now you could add an attractive element (gravity or charge) to the *OUTSIDE* of some body of material and create an "acceleration" that "looks like" an expansion of space, but is in fact an expansion of spacetime due to gravitational or charge attraction to an external body of matter.

4.) He talks a great deal at the end about the "Prophetic approach" and the "Actualistic approach". The prophetic approach, he says, is where people invent an answer they think is right, to summarize. The actualistic approach is where people measure what something is now, and then run backwards in time.

But as Alfven's paper demonstrates, just by changing a few key assumptions, running time backwards produces different results. How then can we be sure which conditions actually played themselves out?

Unfortunately, I think both of them are pretty much irrelevant. What matters is the scientific method. Regardless of what orifice a hypothesis is pulled from, if it makes predictions that can be confirmed or refuted, then it's a good start. That's how science works.

But all in all regarding the paper, Alfrin spent a lot of time whiplashing around different subjects, spent a lot of time not getting to the point, and didn't impress me too much with his rationalizations. I did think the "Alpha Centauri: Antimatter, or not?" was pretty interesting, but I didn't see what that had to do with the main topic of the paper.

Well, you and I really took very different views of that paper. I was intrigued by it, not necessarily sold on it. What I liked about was the fact you could do away with the need for something like inflation to get things started. You could do away with a concept of a "singularity" where stuff get's ugly, and we could do away with the need to resort to "dark sky gods" to explain events in space. IMO that is a step in right empirical direction.