On 6 Nov 2003 at 21:20, James N Rose wrote:
> If we are now observing acceleration,
> that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration)
> and then a huge reduction in acceleration.
> So, what bled off the extra original acceleration
> momentum?  Or countered it?  

A mind bending question. Greetings, James.

My argument includes the notion that from the perspective of our 
universe the big bang took time to occur within, not everything 
popped into existence simultaneously. The dominant "force" was the 
attempt of the meta universe to restore its zero energy imbalance 
that the way virtual particles had distributed themselves (in the 
meta universe and quite by chance) had caused to go in to imbalance. 
That force was predominantly being expressed as a near infinite rate 
of expansion (a very high acceleration). At first the rate was 
expanding faster than the speed of light and nearly all the virtual 
particles were being immediately returned to the meta universe.

But due to the quirky laws of quantum mechanics not all particles 
were being immediately returned, some stuck around long enough that 
the force of gravity came into existence. As the birth continued an 
ever increasing value of gravity resulted. Gravity is locally 
stronger than the inflationary force, it slowed the expansion rate 
down. But expansion continued regardless, at a decreasing rate.

But the affect of gravity is dependant upon distance. As particles 
receded from each other, like dots on the surface of an inflating 
balloon, gravity had less and less effect upon neighbour particles.

Once distance between particles became great enough then the force of 
expansion again became dominant, and the universe again began to 
expand and at an ever increasing rate. It is apparently continuing to 
do so. In our case the number of particles that were ultimately given 
birth to seems to indicate that our universe will never experience a 
big crunch (else inflation would not be occurring).

So there was no counter force to expansion, it was only a matter of 
relativity, the number of particles that came into being, how fast 
they were coming into being, and the ultimate number of how many came 
into being. The big bang happened in spurts, it didn't happen all at 

> Are we do believe that this 'dark matter' which
> is out there 'increasing acceleration' is also 
> responsible for the phase of 'decelerating
> acceleration' that had to have been in place 
> prior to the current cosmological era??!

It is dark energy (DE) that is responsible for the exansion of the 
universe. I argue that it is not really energy as we know the term, 
but sort of a potential for energy in our universe to be returned to 
the meta universe from which it came. The potential results in 
eventual heat death of our universe at some finite time, and at that 
time there is no measurable difference between our universe and the 
meta universe (which has always been at heat death) and they are both 
really the same object.

Black holes are always shrinking to a singularity, effectively 
increasing distance between themselves and everything else that 
exists in our universe. A black hole is just a localized area of 
space/time inflation. That concept is important.

The matter that goes into a black hole becomes energy returned to the 
meta-universe. What remains is not a "black hole" as we think of one 
being, but a sort of energy potential portal into the meta-universe. 
These portals are what exhibit the affect that is being labeled dark 
matter (DM). It's an attraction by the meta-universe, its attempt to 
reclaim its zero energy balance. It is no different than dark energy, 
they are one and the same and they only appear to be different 
depending upon your relative viewpoint. They are both just different 
expressions of the ever increasing rate of inflation of the universe.

Ron McFarland

Reply via email to