>
>Dennis Menard wrote to Richard Meic about Time and Again
 RM> I do not find this statement very accurate, because what has actually
 RM> been happening is they observe, conclude, then look for support for
 RM> their conclusion.  That is a far stretch form observing, theorizing,
 DM> Forgive me for this brief interruption, Richard:
 DM> Latest observations indicate expansion of the universe is
 DM> `accelerating!' It is easy enough to check out; all major news sources
 DM> carried the story. 
 
 That's indeed strange.  I hate to come to the point where I must
 contradict you - but latest observations have indeed demonstrated
 without reservation that the Universe's expansion has been slowing
 down.  It does move pretty fast though.
 DM> The first effect of this information is the resurrection, wholly
 DM> intact, of Einstein's long deceased `cosmological constant' and the
 DM> possibility of that `UNlooked for' and `UNexpected' spectre of the
 DM> mythological `5th force.' 
 
 Hardly.  Einstein himself rejected this idea of his own, admitting he 
 was wrong - because the Universe was found not to be _static_ at all.  
 If the universe is not static (and it isn't) then there is no 5th force: 
 a repellent to gravity keeping matter from falling in on itself.  The 
 only "5th force" needed to keep gravity in check, is momentum, and 
 it's hardly a 5th force, or "cosmological constant" that we have 
 _not_ observed.  It is the force of the original blast.  This is 
 very much accepted in the consensus, and its discovery (the expansion) 
 can be followed backwards - demonstrating a point at which all matter 
 in the universe was at a singularity.  The force that caused the 
 original expansion is robust - but fading, losing steam.  The 
 Universe's expansion is slowing down - not the other way 'round.
 
 In fact, if we were shrinking - and not expanding - then there still
 is no need for a 5th force.  A 5th force is only possible if the
 Universe was found to be static, and even then only conjecturable.
 Because if and when the Universe stops expanding, and before it begins
 to shrink (should it do so) there will be several billions of years
 pass, in which during the intervening time, the Universe will actually
 appear to _be_ static.
 DM> How is your preferred cosmological view coping, with this new
 DM> information? I realise, of course, the new data is only a week old.
 
 This new data is unconfirmed and useless.  It contradicts studies which
 must take into account years of observations determining how fast things
 moved in the past versus how fast they are moving now, and guessing at
 how fast they will be moving in the future.  Since the original research
 had to take years, decades actually, to determine - it's reportedly
 being contradicted is highly suspect indeed, especially at this early
 date.
 
... For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------