[Dave Lev (OP)]

Is Einstein wrong or are you wrong?   

You are wrong

Your conjecture states that galaxies can move through space faster than light.  That clearly and unambiguously violates relativity.  If your conjecture is true then you have falsified relativity.
How do you explain this?

How can you speak in the name of relativity while the BBT directly contradicts both the Inflation and the space expansion?
Did you try to read my following explanation?

1. Inflation - The inflation is a direct contradiction with the relativity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21
based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.
There is no way to get locally velocities which is faster than the speed of light. This idea contradicts with the Relativity. Therefore, the inflation is just imagination.
2. Dark matter
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21
as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":
Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.
However, In order to validate the Dark matter our scientists have used the" forbidden" cosmological constant that Einstein have set in his formula. They have totally neglected the simple fact that later on he had stated that this was his biggest mistake:
"In many Einstein biographies, it is claimed that Einstein referred to the cosmological constant in later years as his "biggest blunder". The astrophysicist Mario Livio has recently cast doubt on this claim, suggesting that it may be exaggerated.[196]
So till 1990 no one really consider to use this forbidden cosmological constant and there was no need for that as our scientists were sure that due to the BBT the expansion is slowing down.
Therefore, In order to bypass that killing discovery, our scientists have decided to use that cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his request. Therefore, it is a clear violation on Einstein formula.
So again, do you really think that you can change the history?

As I have already explained Einstein was not aware in his time about the discovery that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, his theory was applicable to the compact and local Universe that was known at his time.
So Einstein have told us in his relativity theories that in his compact and local universe there is NO WAY to get velocities faster than the speed of light.
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light. This is a fatal contradiction with Einstein relativity theory.
That by itself knocks down the BBT.

Maybe you should go study what relativity actually claims instead of straw-manning it.

As you know relativity much better than me, don't you see clear contradiction between relativity to the velocities faster than light in the inflation assumption?

However, I assume that our science community are not going to give up so soon. Hence if that is not good enough, than let's look again on the history of the BBT.
As I have already explained, before 1990 our scientists were expecting that the expansion should slow down.
Therefore, the discovery of the velocities of the far end galaxies (higher than the speed of light) set a sever contradiction with the expectation based on the BBT at that time.
This is one more reason why the BBT might be none relevant.
In any case, in order to keep the BBT alive, our scientists have offered the dark matter.
So, it is not the expansion that takes those far end galaxies faster than the speed of light (and overcome the gravity) but it is the dark matter that does this job.
Therefore, do you agree that the BBT overcomes the relativity/gravity problems by dark energy.
However, our scientists don't have any clue about that dark energy:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
"A mysterious quantity known as dark energy makes up nearly three-fourths of the universe, yet scientists are unsure not only what it is but how it operates."
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, that dark energy is offered as a saver element for the BBT without any clue what is that dark energy, how it had been evolved and if it is really there..
It is also stated:
"Calculating the energy needed to overcome gravity, scientists determined that dark energy makes up roughly 68 percent of the universe. Dark matter makes up another 27 percent, leaving the "normal" matter that we are familiar with to make up less than 5 percent of the cosmos around us."
So, our scientists want us to believe that this dark matter is actually 68 present from the whole energy in the universe while the Normal matter including all the galaxies in the observable 92BLY universe is less than 5%.
So, how can we believe that those extra 95% energy is needed for the BBT just to explain the 5% of the real matter that we see?
Let me ask you the following?
It is clear that our science community feel that they have full control on the Knowledge in the Universe. They deliver any dark matter and dark energy at any density and at any location that is needed for them in order to support the BBT.
So, why for example, it is forbidden for me to use those brilliant ideas of dark energy/matter?
 If it works for the BBT, why I can't use them also for Theory D or any sort of theory?
Why I can't assume that those dark ideas were there before the BBT and than those dark energies have set the entire infinite Universe. No need for a bang and no need to set any sort of calculation.
Do you agree with that?
So, if it makes it more acceptable, do you agree that I can use those dark ideas also for theory D (although there is no need for them)?
In this way you won't ask me again about relativity and we all should be very satisfy.
Or do you mean that only our scientists that believe in the BBT have full access to those dark ideas and therefore, no body else should use them in his theory in order to overcome the relativity?

[Bored chemist]

Did you try to read my following explanation?

That's an explanation of why you think teh BBT doesn't agree with relativity- it's mistaken , but that's not the point>
You can tell us how a million different ideas don't agree with relativity.
It won't make any difference to the fact that your idea does not agree with relativity.

It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.

Relativity has been verified on, at least, an intergalactic scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross

[Bobolink]

You are wrong

Please show me where I am wrong.  I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light.

Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light.

False.  The universe was expanding faster than light, the mass was not moving. 
Let me again remind you, your inability to understand a concept does not make it wrong.

But this is all a waste of time, you don't want to learn because then you would have to abandon your 'theory'.

[Kryptid]

As you know relativity much better than me, don't you see clear contradiction between relativity to the velocities faster than light in the inflation assumption?

Another perfect example of you not understanding relativity. Or inflation. Or both. Probably both.

[Bobolink]

Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light.

Sorry, that is just your misunderstanding.  Nobody thinks matter moved faster than light, ever.  What you are trying to say is that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.

So Einstein have told us in his relativity theories that in his compact and local universe there is NO WAY to get velocities faster than the speed of light.

Einstein's mathematics showed that nothing can move through space faster than c.  The math is easy, just high school algebra.  The closer you approach c the higher your relativistic mass becomes, at c your relativistic mass becomes infinite.  So obviously, you can't get there.

This is a fatal contradiction with Einstein relativity theory.

It would be a flaw if we thought that mass went faster than light, but we don't so it isn't.

That by itself knocks down the BBT.

Except the BBT doesn't say that mass moves faster than light, so not a problem.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Please show me where I am wrong.

You and our science community have a fatal error in your calculation of time/age of the Universe.
You have stated:

If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age  is then given by an expression of the form
where  is the Hubble parameter and the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble parameter. With a value for  around 69 km/s/Mpc, the Hubble time evaluates to = 14.5 billion years.[6]

I have replied:

do you know that the Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic?
However, our universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic. This was very clear also to Mr. friedmann.
Therefore, in order to bypass this problem he had assumed that empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
Hence, you can't use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than 100Mpc.
So, you can't just take the Universe at the size of 10,000Ly and set Friedmann equations which is relevant only for scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
As you try to do so, you set a severe violation that is the base for the severe mistake at the age/size of our Universe.

So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
Once you understand that, you have to agree that our scientists have fatal error in their assumption about age/size of the Universe

[Bored chemist]

So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?

As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is  changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with  the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.

So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it  for smaller samples of the early universe.

So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.

[Bobolink]

You and our science community have a fatal error in your calculation of time/age of the Universe.

I guess it's nice to feel you are smarter than all of the scientists in the world.  It is especially surprising since you can't even do freshman physics.

You did not answer the question I asked, so I will ask again.

"Please show me where I am wrong.  I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light."

[Dave Lev (OP)]

"Please show me where I am wrong.  I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light."

I have already answered this question
So, let me tell you again:
Based on theory D, the hypothetical idea was that galaxies at the far end should move faster than the speed of light.
That was clear to me several years ago while I had no clue if we have a prove for that..
We all know that we can justify expectation/hypothetical ideas by math/physical law. However, the highest level of confirmation is - observation.
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
As there is a clear observation for that idea, than there is no need for me to deal with any sort of contradiction that you might have with this concept or other one even if it is called Relativity.
Just an example - Let's assume that based on Einstein formula birds can't fly backwards.
So, if we find a bird that flying backwards, do we need to kill it as it doesn't obey to Einstein formula, or could it be that there is an error in the formula???
Sorry, it is up to you to solve the contradiction between observation to any sort of hypothetical ideas/ formulas.
This is your job to update the formula so it will reflect the OBSERVATION.
Our universe is not working according to our scientists' formula
It must work the other way.
Our scientists' formulas must represent the universe that we see.
Newton didn't set the gravity formula and ask the Universe to obey to his formula.
It was the other way. Newton formula represents the gravity of our universe
At the same token, as there is a contradiction between the relativity to the Observation you have two options:
Option one - As the Universe doesn't obey to the relativity formula, we should consider destroying that knotty Universe and asking for new one the meets the relativity.
Option two - Update the relativity formula to meet the new observation
Please choose one.

In any case, you surly can't now claim that ONLY the BBT can solve the contradiction between the observations to the relativity.
This is a FATAL historical mistake and clear lie.
Based on the BBT and the expansion till 1990, our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT???
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
So, how  can you claim now that ONLY BBT has the explanation for this discovery, while it was the Biggest surprising observation for our scientists in 1990?
Do you really think that you can change the history?
Actually, upon this discovery, our scientists have almost abandon the BBT and the whole expansion theory.
Just after the imagination idea of Dark energy the BBT came back to life.
It is stated back on white in the history of the BBT.
Even so, in order to justify that dark energy our scientists add the forbidden cosmological constant to Einstein equation, while he has stated that this constant is its biggest mistake in his entire life.
So, how do you dare to speak in the name of Einstein relativity formula, while on the other hand you set this forbidden constant cosmological in his formula?
If you really care about Einstein - than first take out the cosmologic constant from his formulas and then let's discuss.
So, how can you claim that only the BBT can explain the ultra high velocity of far end galaxies while we all know that this discovery almost kill the BBT?
Don't you have some minimal respect to history?
In any case, it is our scientists' obligation to update the formulas to meet our observable Universe even if this formula is called relativity.
This is their job. Not mine.

I still waiting for your answer:

So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
Once you understand that, you have to agree that our scientists have fatal error in their assumption about age/size of the Universe

[Bored chemist]

Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.

Where is the article that says things move through space faster than light rather than that space itself is expanding faster than light?

[Bored chemist]

I still waiting for your answer:

Let me know why this was delayed.

So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?

As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is  changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with  the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.

So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it  for smaller samples of the early universe.

So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.

[Bored chemist]

I still waiting for your answer:

Let me know why this was delayed.

So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?

As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is  changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with  the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.

So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it  for smaller samples of the early universe.

So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.

Speaking of "still waiting".
When are you going to address the issues and questions I raised here?

Can I just check on something?
Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe  is infinite.
Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.
So

Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?

On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?
It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted)  from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.

If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.

Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.

So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.

So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe"
"a CMBR means that we have an  infinite universe"

The important difference is that only one of them is true.

[Bobolink]

Based on theory D, the hypothetical idea was that galaxies at the far end should move faster than the speed of light.

That violates relativity so we can safely toss that conjecture out with the trash.

Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.

So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
 

In any case, you surly can't now claim that ONLY the BBT can solve the contradiction between the observations to the relativity.

There is no contradiction.  I don't know if you're just trolling now or not smart enough to understand.

Based on the BBT and the expansion till 1990, our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT???

Of course not!  This whole science thing is a real mystery to you, isn't it?

If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.

False.  Apparently, the BTT is another mystery to you.  Hint:  Dark energy is not required to have recession velocities exceed the speed of light.I

Even so, in order to justify that dark energy our scientists add the forbidden cosmological constant to Einstein equation, while he has stated that this constant is its biggest mistake in his entire life.
So, how do you dare to speak in the name of Einstein relativity formula, while on the other hand you set this forbidden constant cosmological in his formula?

Your child like understanding of these fairly complicated ideas make any discussion, really challenging, annoying and ultimately useless.  Your basic response so far has been to stick your fingers in your ears and say nuh-uh.

Let my try with small words and short sentences.
The field equations of General Relativity indicated that the universe was not static.  Einstein thought it probably was static so he put in a fudge factor to make the equation say the universe was static.  Oops, he realized the universe was not static so he took out the fudge factor.
Recent measurements indicate that as of about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate.  The field equations of General Relativity did not reflect these observations.  A cosmological constant was added to the field equations to have them accurately reflect observations. 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The field equations of General Relativity indicated that the universe was not static.  Einstein thought it probably was static so he put in a fudge factor to make the equation say the universe was static.  Oops, he realized the universe was not static so he took out the fudge factor.

Yes, that is fully correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
In theoretical physics, when Albert Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant), whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, "the biggest blunder of my life."[2]"
So, we all agree that Einstein have totally rejected the idea of this Fudge_factor that we call today "Cosmological Constant"

Recent measurements indicate that as of about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate.

That is totally incorrect.
Our scientists only see that the farther a galaxy is located the faster it is moving.
So, the idea that about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate is just a fantasy.
As I have already explained, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real age of our universe due to the following:
Friedman equation: Those equations valid ONLY for Homogenous and isotropic Universe. However, it is very clear that our Universe is not homogenous and not isotropic. So, in order to bypass this problem Friedman assumed that it might be Homogenous and isotropic at a size which is bigger than 100 Mpc.
I don't agree with this assumption. It is not Homogenous and isotropic at any size.
Let me just use the following examples:
We can say that the cars in the highway from NY to DFW have all the variety of the color rainbow.
Therefore, if we look far away than the mix of the colors might be white.
So, theoretically we can assume that in large scale the color of all the cars in this highway is white.
Than we can say, that as they are already white in large scale, than if we dense them all in a limited area they will surely be white. So, we can say that even in small scale they are white.
In the same token our scientists wish to believe that when the Universe was smaller than 100 Mpc it was surly Homogenous and isotropic.
Sorry, I don't agree with the idea that the Universe is Homogenous an isotropic at larger than 100 Mpc and surly not when the whole Universe was smaller than 100 Mpc.
Don't forget that the inflation had ended when the Universe size was at the size of only 10,00 LY.
On the other hand, our scientists see mature SMBH and Galaxies with Billions of stars when the Universe age (based on their assumption) was younger than 600 MY and still quite compact.
So, if the early 100PC was homogenous and isotropic, than the density of the matter should be identical everywhere. That by itself is a direct contradiction to star/BH/SMBH/galaxies forming activity.
However, as usual our scientists always assume that the universe acts according to their wishing list.
So, when it is convenient to use Friedmann equation, than they assume for homogenous and isotropic also for small scale, while as they see young supper massive galaxy, than they assume that the star formation have started very early so the early universe shouldn't be considered as homogenous and isotropic.
I have also explained to you that it was a severe mistake to divide the temp by CMB' redshirt in order to get other estimation about the temp/age of the early universe and you have confirmed your error about it.
So, to make it short:
The assumption that about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate is just a fiction.

The field equations of General Relativity did not reflect these observations.

The field equations of General Relativity don't need to reflect that imagination as the observation does not reflect any age..
The real Observation means - the farther the galaxy is, the faster it moves. That's all.

A cosmological constant was added to the field equations to have them accurately reflect observations.

As you have severe mistake in understanding the observation than it is also a severe mistake to add this cosmological constant to meet this imagination.
In any case, as Einstein had stated that this cosmological constant was his biggest mistake, than our scientists shouldn't use it in his formula under any circumstances.
However, it seems that nothing can stop them to believe in the BBT. Not even Einstein himself.
I wonder how our scientists dare to bring back that constant to Einstein formula against his clear request/will and still call it Einstein formula???
In any case, if they wish to add this constant in Einstein formula than they shouldn't use this formula under his name.
As they carry Einstein name for nothing than it is a severe lie.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.

False.  Apparently, the BTT is another mystery to you.  Hint:  Dark energy is not required to have recession velocities exceed the speed of light.I

That is incorrect.
The history is written black on white:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
"In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos, so the question many asked was, just how much was the expansion slowing?"
So, our scientists were sure that the expansion is slowing.
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, our scientists in 1990 have assumed that the dark energy is needed to this acceleration.
If now you have changed your assumption, than this is OK.
But you can't change the history.
If you do so you actually lie.

That violates relativity so we can safely toss that conjecture out with the trash.

How do you dare to speak on the name of Einstein Relativity, while just now you have approved to ignore his direct request for not to adding that cosmological constant in his formula?
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.

So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 03:31:57
We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.

It was never in doubt that the recession velocity of galaxy can exceed c, that has been known for decades.

So you have even confirmed it

[Bored chemist]

Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.

Where is the article that says things move through space faster than light rather than that space itself is expanding faster than light?

[Bored chemist]

"In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast.

OK, so you have documented the start of the BBT as1929

In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!

And you have set the date for the idea that we needed dark energy (or something) as about 1990.
(It's 1992 really,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00644200
 but that's not the point)
Do you understand that 1929 is before 1990?

So, at any time between 1929 and  the 1990s anyone who was asked about the BBT couldn't have included any discussion about dark energy.
For example, if you had asked me when Iwas a student, I'd have been able to explain BBT to you without needing to include the term "dark energy" because- and this is important, dark energy isn't actually part of the BBT.
Dark energy is what happens AFTER the big bang
It's an addition to the study of cosmology, but a BBT can (and did, and still does ) exist without it.

[Bored chemist]

So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
 

So you have even confirmed it

It's the misunderstanding then.

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?

[Bobolink]

That is totally incorrect.
Our scientists only see that the farther a galaxy is located the faster it is moving.

That is bold faced lie.

As I have already explained, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real age of our universe

What an idiot.

In any case, as Einstein had stated that this cosmological constant was his biggest mistake, than our scientists shouldn't use it in his formula under any circumstances.

What an idiot. 

In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, our scientists in 1990 have assumed that the dark energy is needed to this acceleration.
If now you have changed your assumption, than this is OK.
But you can't change the history.
If you do so you actually lie.

What an idiot.  You said "our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down."  That false and not something that a scientist would say about any theory.  I realize that these concepts are way to subtle for an idiot to understand.

[Kryptid]

I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What an idiot.

Shame on you!
As of this moment, I have no intention to read your messages any more.
Thanks for all your efforts so far.