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 once. > 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
