"as you seem to imply." R7 #53
One of two things is true.
a) Either the discovery of the accelerating expansion occurred the femtosecond the scientific capacity to discover it was manifest, or
b) there was a lag time.
If you know anything about science, or human nature you'll know that the "a" option is not likely.
"Also, the big crunch was not presumed." R7
By whom?
The global community of scientists is an absolute solid monolith without any ideological diversity?
If the presumption about the expanding universe was that gravitational braking was slowing the expansion,
then what other POSSIBLE outcome could have resulted, than a big crunch?
It's not rhetoric. TELL ME !!
After a progressively slowing expansion comes a progressively accelerating* contraction.
"It was not known which of several possibilities the future of expansion would take. This in turn depended on how much stuff the universe contained. Not enough stuff and the universe would slow down but never quite stop expanding, slow down to an exact balance between expansion and contraction, or slow down, pause and then contract to a big crunch if more than enough stuff were present."
Proving my point you've tried to refute.
I don't recall having asserted there was unanimity.
Which of the 3 prevailed, 33.3%+ I can't prove. But the sources I've read generally overlooked the first 2 you've cited.
* I'm using the word "accelerating" in a way most astrophysicists would recoil at. I'm fully aware of the astrophysical definition of "accelerate", to change velocity.
But at a layman's site, in a layman's thread, I'll bend to terrestrial appetites. No offense intended.