Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, & conservation

From: Ron McFarland <>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:16:30 -0800

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
Received on Fri Nov 07 2003 - 02:19:24 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST