I dunno, could it be possible that the universe is still accelerating to some maximum velocity as a result of the initial big bang inflation?

Brian in Newark has it right: history does indeed repeat itself.
The whole 'dark matter' argument sounds a lot like the 19th century debate about the 'ether' - the medium through which all EM energy supposedly propagated through the universe - until the Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1887 blew that theory away and set the stage for Einstein's special relativity some 18 years later.
We need a 21st-century version of Michaelson-Morley to set the stage for the next great physics discovery. I hope I'm around to see it - the results of those discoveries could be truly astounding.

I believe in this theory, but to act as devils advocate:

If you have three points: A, B, and C on a linear line going from A to C, where A is the beggining and does not move; C is the furthest point and B is in the middle. The linear line is made of a rubber band. All points start out coincidental and then we have "The big bang". So A is the starting point and C is moving out with B at about half the distance. Obviously their velocity is highest the moment after the "Big Bang". As they slow down though, from the relative point of view from B as it slows down, does C appear to "accelerate" away from B's view point though from A's stand point it is actually slowing down? If you set up this experiment there is a point in time where from B's view point that C appears to be "accelerating away" but that's relative from B's stand point. Relative to the overall view, everything is slowing down as it moves away from point A.

If so, A could be the center of the universe, B could be Earth and C could be the outter rim of the universe.

Is is possible that galactic and "volumetrically cumulative" space gravitation force could be acting on the light particals causing them to slow down?  I'm talking about the cumulative mass of all matter between the observer and the observed: existing bodies and unobservable debris/dust etc.  Extremely distant objects moving away would exhibit a red-shift that is appropriate for its velocity but the cumulative gravitational force of all objects/matter nearer to the observer would provide the additional "slowing" of the light particals thereby creating an allusion of increasing red-shift: similar to a gravitational lens of one galaxy bending/changing the viewed shape/size/movement of distant galaxies.  Is it possible for the cumulative mass between the observer and the observed light to be slowed more as it becomes more distant?  The further away it gets, the more direct the angle of gravitation force of all matter acting on the light partical becomes thereby allowing more matter/mass to act on the visible light streaming our direction.  I'm not a scientist so I don't really have an understanding of all that goes into this type of study but I appreciate the opportunity to post and have enjoyed reading your posts.

    Since these observations are looking at objects far away in distance, aren't we also looking far back in time as well ?  Perhaps the 'acceleration' measured for far away objects is simply due to the
difference in objects' velocity then versus now, and our perception is scewed by the time/distance factors ?  If there were a place to observe both our current Universe and the older one we see at large distances from ourselves, would we understand the observed differences ?

My theory is that there either exists or does not exist some new factor in how the forces in the universe interact. And these may or may not be the reasons for the possible anomalies that the astronomers may or may not be seeing in the data.

My theory also predicts that the sky may or may not be blue, the world may or may not be round, and this post may or may not be stupid.

A thought:
Everything we know about gravity is wrong.
Time flows slower towards a greater mass.  When you’re standing up time flows slower at your feet than it does at your head and that difference keeps you from floating away with the breeze.  Gravity is an illusion.  It could actually be a function of time.  The moon could be held in its orbit by the difference in the flow of time comparable to the greater mass of the earth.  The earth’s orbit, the solar system orbiting the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, all of the things we attribute to gravity could be caused by variations in the passage of time.
If that were the case then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could just be our point of view, our vantage point, as we observe the universe.  What we see as the speed-up factor known as dark energy could be time going faster relative to ourselves.  The expansion is not going faster, time is going faster relative to us.  As we look out into the universe with instruments that measure the red and blue shifts of light waves that were generated long ago are we taking into account that time does not happen at the same rate everywhere.
I doubt that even light traveling from nearby stars to here is traveling at the same relative time as light from our sun traveling to earth.  With that in mind the universe could be much different than what we think it is.

For you physics experts out there, what kind of force is elasticity?  This whole thing got me thinking about a balloon.  I realize the forces are completely different between a balloon (elasticity) and galaxies (gravity).  But the analogy is interesting, at least in my mind.

Imagine that we have a plain ole' rubber balloon.  We take a Sharpie marker and mark a dot on the balloon.  If we created a non-destructive "explosion" inside the deflated balloon, the balloon would rapidly expand and our dot would move, commensurate with the rubber it's drawn on.  Due to friction/elasticity/whatever, the rate of expansion would slow, and thus the "speed", or rate of acceleration, of our dot would also slow down.  Let's say the balloon gets so big that it eventually pops.  All of a sudden, our little dot quickly "re-accelerates" because the rubber tries to snap back to its original shape very quickly.  The energy causing our dot to fling across the room is from the rubber snapping, not directly from the energy generated by the explosion itself.

Perhaps this dark energy is like some sort of "supercharged cosmic rubber" of the universe, "snapping" sometime after the the Big Bang and flinging everything across the cosmos.  In essence, "re-accelerating" the galaxies.

Anyway, this is what my non-scientific brain thought of.  I don't claim that it is scientifically valid.  Just a thought.

Is there a connection between dark energy/matter and antimatter?

My main concern in all of this, is how the mitosis of the gigawatts expansion into the nebula, will affect my pocket protector and Magic cards.

A Note:  gravitation isn't so much of a force as if it were an invisible rubber band, but curvature of  space/time.  Saying that, three decades of experiments have undertaken to measure gravitational waves, albeit unsuccessfully.  This spring, the LHC has the potential to add to the known fact base.  It's an $8 billion gambit.

Wouldn't the fact that the universe is accelerating be partially explained by what happens in a black hole.  A black hole suck s up all of this mass and energy into a singularity.  Well, Based on E=MC2, there has to be some  "exhaust" for this singulairty.  All of the mass and energy must go somewhere after it passes the event horizon.   It seems to me that the energy that is causing the universe to accelerate can be accounted for by the all the energy that seems to disappear on the other side of the event horizon of a black hole.

In other words, while balck holes appear to be big gravitaional sinks, I think that what we haven't seen is the other "side" of a black hole that is perhaps a "big bang" or some repulsive force in and of itself.  To me, that provides balance ot the equation.  Now I am just a thinker with a basic knowledge of physics, but the fact of the matter is that we have no idea what happens to matter and energy and light after it crosses the event horizon.  Does it all really get compress into one microscopic singularity, or is it converted into "dark energy" that somehow provides fuel for an expanding, accelerating universe.

Does this make any since?  Am I missing something?

There is one thing about expansion & red shifts that has always confused me - I think a couple of other readers may have indirectly hit on it. Astronomers observe that farther away galaxies have greater red shift and conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. My initial reaction would be exactly the opposite! Light from the more distant galaxies started its journey longer ago than light from nearer galaxies. If the red shift of the more distant (older) galaxy is greater than the nearer (younger) galaxy, red shift, and therefore acceleration, appear to be decreasing with time!
I am no physicist, and I know physicists are pretty smart, but I do not see the flaw in my interpretation.

i can only imagine that at some level or distance, where not even telescopes can see, there is a force that is immeasurable or eternally beyond human comprehension. i understand that some astronomers and physicists agree that at some point or level in the universe physics as understood by man just breaks down. i say to all the scientists studying the problem, "Keep on truckin'!"

First, in response to Louis, I suggest that time is not a variable, it is a Hamiltonian operator.  Second, what if the distance between any two points in space can be described by an equation similar to the form of x2^t?  In other words, space is continually inserted between all points in "free" space.

one of you said "What's out there to speed it all up?"....aren't we all forgetting something simple that we learned way back when?... that Nature abhors a vacuum?..... if space is expanding into 'nothing', then that nothing is an empty void into which all the galaxies are rushing headlong in order to take up a place in that vacuum that Nature abhors... and so would be increasing in speed toward that end, once the grasp of gravity had weakened sufficiently....works for me....

what do we really know about total mass/energy in our perceived universe? What if it is a lot more than we think posible, and much older than we can realize. If the 'begining' sent enough material toward our 13 billion year old 'event horizon' long enough ago, couldn't that explain acceleration forces?

You have to measure acceleration or movement against a non moving object to see if what you are measuring really is going faster or moving at all.  The last I heard, there are no non moving objects in the universe to measure against, so all of the movements or increases could be relative to each other, and not really accelerating at all.  There could be deceleration but not showing it because of the angle you are viewing it from and how fast one object is going away from the other.  
In other words, we see an object out away from us. It seems to be standing still until we realize it is getting smaller.  Is it getting smaller because we are stationary at the same distance and it is shrinking in size (like a melting snowball) or are we growing bigger?  Is it moving away from us, or are we moving away from it or are we both moving away from each other?  You don't know unless there is a third stationary object you can compare both objects against. Is the preception of the universe expanding faster only because the distances between object are expanding due to the angle between them increasing?  Think of target shooting.  Everyone shakes somewhat when they pull the trigger.  If you are shooting at a 25 yard target, you may be very close or even dead center in the the bullseye.  At 400 yards out, the bullet (don't think about the gravity or wind pull on it) may be 12 inches or more off the target to the right.  Did the bullet all of a sudden move to the right on its own?  Maybe the target moved away from the bullet to the left? There is a 12 inch descrepancy.  The only reason we don't believe either of these scenarios is that we know we stapled the target to a non moveable object such as a post in the ground and that the bullet is going in a straight line. Where is our post when measuring all the moving objects in the universe?  Can we measure "A" (something) that is a billion light years away and compare it to our earthly position today? I think we don't really know where "A" is anymore after a billion years have past or where we are today in relationship to "A" or even where earth is today in relationship to the rest of the universe.  We are also on a arm of the swirling Milky Way Galaxy.  When we next take a measurement, where will be be in relation to the object we looked at before?  We could be on the other side of the carosel and not even be able to see the object anymore.  

I like the comment by Louis R. Archuleta on 1-31-08 1:15 P.M.  Sounds like something I would like to read more about.

Mankinds beliefs affect everything, change man's belief and you change the universe, oh, and by the way, the "universal laws" change naturally with them. The real unknown is inside us. That's what we need to be exploring and reporting.

The real problem here lies in the measurements.  Our current technology compared to technology just a few years down the road is similar to a comparison of a sundial and a cesium clock.  Science has always been, and always will be, about the measurements.  It great to speculate and theorize, but the proof is in the pudding.  If we're meant to find the answers, we will.

IF OUR UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING AT A INCREASED SPEED IT IS EXPANDING INTO SOMTHING. THAT SOMETHING COULD BE ONE OR MORE OTHER UNIVERSES WHICH COULD BE SUPPLYING THE ENERGY FOR THE INCREASED SPEED THAT WE ARE SEEING. THE QUESTION WOULD BE HOW DO YOU CALCULATE THAT????

OUR UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING INTO SOMETHING, THAT SOMETHING COULD BE OTHER UNIVERSES OR OTHER DIMENTIONS AND THAT COULD BE WHERE THE ENERGY IS COMING FROM. THE QUESTION IS HOW DOES ONE CALCULATE THAT??? MAYBE THE DARK ENERGY ISN'T IN OUR UNIVERSE AT ALL!!

"At the beginning of this era, the gravitational pull of the mass as it was closer together would create a drag on the expansion. As objects move farther away from the center and other objects, the drag should decrease, resulting in an acceleration."
Ok, this would be true, if and only if the object has a constant source of acceleration. What is the constant source that would allow the Galaxy to "speed up"? If the movement originated from the initial explosive action of the Big Bang, that was one source, and then the only other source out there would be gravity, unless there is another source pulling the galaxy towards it. So the laws of gravity should be affecting the galaxy by pulling objects towards each other once the acceleration force is stopped.

Ryan has an interesting point, but what would be the source of the wind? Could the originating point of the Big Bang still be generating energy?

Space doesn't offer a resistance or drag, otherwise our planet's orbit wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. The biggest issue we have is relational issues, in that our planet is so small in a cosmic sense and we have barely traveled beyond our own galaxy with a simple probe. Just as the speed of sound was a limit 60 years ago, the speed of light will be one until we discover how to move beyond the wrappings our intellect will allow us to define in open space.

I dont know jack and wont pretend to but there seem to be some pretty smart people on this site but they are not the ones who think lack of gravity causes acceleration.I have a question that might apply to this subjet.If energy can be created but not destoyed what happens at the ultimate point of breakdown when there is no farther for entropy to affect something?Could this be dark matter and dark energy?I'm sure this is to obvious but what do you expect from a G.E.D.?Any informed opinon based on facts would be welcome.

Bob in Kansas City, MO at 3:44 P.M. has an interesting observation also.  
Is what we see in the past viable to let us know what is going on today or in the future?  I've said before that by looking at a picture of our grandparents, or parents in my case, a person not knowing what the situation really was, could not say what the folks were like after looking at that picture.  They are in different times.  A snap shot only.  The angle could be wrong, the lighting bad, the picture could have been impromtu, not allowing the participants to get dressed properly.  Etc.  The past may not tell us anything of value.  We just tell ourselves what we want to believe or what we perceive fron that moment.
Also when one thinks of an explosion (Big Bang), there are different particles with different masses and shapes that may have better ballistic coefficients which may allow them to go farther, faster and straighter than others.  (like a bullet or shot pellets). I don't know if there was a vaccum back in the time of the Big Bang (I wasn't there in this form), but lets say that what I am saying works in any condition; then the ballistic coefficency of the particles or masses would be different. When the forces of gravity pulls on the particles, slowing them down, some would slow down faster than others, due to their shape and mass and others would continue being hurled out at the same speed which would make those with a better ballistic coefficent look like they are accelerating past the particles of lesser coefficiency.  Maybe this is all we are seeing in this tiny snap shot of time.  For those bird hunters out there, a shotshell creates a pattern that is not only round from one view point (when it hits the flat paper turkey head target), it is also elongated from front to back the further it gets out from the barrel. The bird that you are aiming at actually flies into the pattern and gets hit by some of the pellets.  If they hit the stragglers pellets in the back or along the sides that are slowing down and causing the increase pattern size, the bird may not be killed outright, as the energy behind these pellets is not as great as those in the front.  
This could be like our universe in the author's story.  We are viewing the pattern of particles and maybe we see those pellets that have a better coefficent fly faster than the stragglers.

Comment to above:  Black holes do release energy (Hawking(s) Radiation) and eventually will emit enough energy to effectively cease to exist.  In that manner, there is no information lost, contrary to early predictions.

Is there another possible answer to the accelerated expansion of the visible universe?  What if, at the time of the Big Bang, there was a huge amount of additional matter surrounding the singularity and it was not part of the Big Bang matter. It's possible that the  Big Bang happened within an existing huge universe.  The Big Bang would expanded matter into space but the relatitively motionless existing matter would not move until the Big Bang shock wave hit it.  This shock wave would start expanding the existing matter but not a the same rate as the Big Bang shock wave.  If that makes sense, then todays visible universe could be a mixture of the existing universe matter and the Big Bang matter.   The dark matter could simply be the stuff that was out there before the Big Bang happened. Due to the gravity of the origional matter, which is intermixed and outside the Big Bang matter, wouldn't this create a gravitational pull on the matter in our visible universe thus accelerating and expanding the outer parts. In other words the origional matter could be pulling the Big Bang matter outward.  How is that for a theory?

The Universe is more than all we can see. I believe we have to stop thinking in terms of propulsion as the only source of acceleration; in a perfect vacuum propulsion is not necessary. Impulsion is possible  in the perfect vacuum of "nothing". As with Osmosis allowing something of greater density to pass through a permeable membrane in order to reach equalibrium with the lesser density on the other side of the membrane. Since there is no membrane in space: as matter comes into contact with the infinitly huge vacuum of nothingness, it will automatically accelerate in order to reach equalibrium. Of course it will never succeed because the useeable universe is infinite, thus matter will continue to accerate until it surpasses the speed of light and we'll be unable to see it. Therefore I claim that the 14 billion or so age of the Universe could be wrong in that it only defines all that we can see. Also, if time is infinite then I ask where are we on the time line? There is no near the end nor near the beginning, infinity is not just never ending but the beginning is so infinilty long ago that we will never be able to find it. Even if you consider that everything was nothing at one time, the "Big Bang" introduced something into the nothing and has been expanding and accelerating ever since. Of course some would say this is too simple an explanation, but sometimes the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Well Nancy, we really don't know where we stand.

What a task:
I read an article last week that the universe may run out of time (stop). I also read a suggestion that time flows differently in different directions. Stellar motions require 100's of years so red shift use is limited (for motions). Also light may have traveled slower in the past.
A note: the cosmological constant was derived at by a "simplification" of 16 differential equations.
Old news: Newtons first law can nowhere in the universe be verified. (Einstein was troubled by this.)

A MISCONCEPTION BY MANY?
The astronomical observations that indicated an acceleration in our universe did NOT show that the most distant galaxies were moving faster than they "should" be but SLOWER. The "slower" moving galaxies are further away from us. The quotation marks need explanation. "Should": according to currently accepted theories. "Slower": slower than what one would find by extrapolating the linear Hubble (velocity vs. distance) graph. For the closer galaxies a plot of speed against distance produces a straight-line graph (leading to the Hubble constant, slope of graph). Recent astronomical observations show that the linear (straight-line) extrapolation of the Hubble closer-in data (all Hubble was able to see in his time) is not valid because the recent data (going to far greater distant galaxies) shows that the line begins to bend downward (away from straight) at these greater distances. This "downward" bend shows that at greater distances the velocity is LOWER than what one would find if one extended (extraploated) the straight-line Hubble graph (assumed the Hubble "constant" held constant, did not decrease a go back in time).
 NOW, because we see these ever more distant galaxies ever farther back in time (nearer to the beginning of our universe), the latest data with the "slowing" show that the galaxies were separating ever more SLOWL:Y in the ever more distant past.
 Because the method of determining the distance to very distant galaxies from super-nova data might have been the cause of this latest result (downward bending of the Hubble graph) is very complicated, many were able to avoid, at first, accepting the latest data as bending the Hubble graph downward UNTIL data from observations that did NOT require the super-nova complications came in. This different source of data convinced most experts in the field that the associated "acceleration" is a reality of our universe and now needs explaining theories. Some still hope that unexpected errors, when or if uncovered, will allow restoration of the Hubble graph to a straight line, hence no acceleration, but most do not give this much credence (it seems that the medicine would be worse than the disease?).
 Finally, many seem to make the expansion of our universe like the expansion from an explosion (the name "BIG BANG" is a great misleader here). The expansion of our universe takes place in four dimensions (space-time) and CANNOT be properly depicted by a three-dimensional "bomb" explosion. The best we can do to visualize things is to limit the spacial dimensions to TWO, like on the surface of a sphere. Imagine a bunch of dots on the surface of a balloon and how they will move away from each other (expand, explode?) as the balloon is inflated and how each dot can imagine itself to be at the center of the expansion. A similar picture CANNOT be seen with a "bomb" explosion where each particle of the explosion CANNOT see itself as at the center of the explosion. Further, each explosion particle can locate the center of the explosion while each dot on the balloon says that NO such unique center exists. The expanding ballon picture is far more like what we find in our universe and does not lead to the problems of the incorrect "bomb" picture. The "bomb" picture makes a velocity filter (the higher the velocties the further from the origin of the blast). The expanding balloon has no origin for the "blast" ("blast" in quotes because it gives wrong picture). There is no spacial origin, rather each observer (galaxy) may consider itself as at the center and a "center" everywhere means no unique center at all. We, three-dimensional-biased creatures are unable to imagine a four-dimensional expansion and we have to trust General Relativity and the associated mathematics to "see" for us. (Mathematics can handle any finite number of dimensions.) The balloon analogy has its limitations too, but  relativity and the mathematics do not. If you can't handle the mathematics involved, you have to be very careful to avoid running into ideas that are often loony and you are, usually, well advised to consult an expert especially if you want to cast legitamte doubts.

To all those people who have stated that the acceleration of expansion can be explained by the distance between galaxies increasing:

You are wrong, period.  The expansion would not accellerate unless there was a force causing the velocity of the galaxies to increase in the direction away from each other.  If you took a puck and slid it across a wooden floor (large friction therefore large decelleration force) onto a frictionless surface (0 friction and no decelleration/acceleration force) the puck would NOT pick up speed once it got onto the frictionless surface but would simply keep going in the same direction and velocity at which it was traveling when it entered the frictionless zone.  Simple grade school physics people, Newton's Laws and all that.

What if all point particles existed at nodes and only at nodes on the fabric of space?  If a large number of particles congregated then the space fabric would bunch up.  If it was the tendency of the space fabric to expand due to either the force of the big bang or other force (the repulsive force or dark energy) then we would see what we see right now.

Has anyone considered that it might still be expanding (after the big bang) but that like an elastic it (the universe/dark matter) might eventually hit a point where it can stretch no further and begin to slow down and eventually contract (in billions of years)...all the way back to the point where we have a second big bang..and here we go again.

Well, gravity may be a negative force slowing things down, as one post notes.  And another post posits the idea that gravity is slowing down expansion, but as expansion increases, gravitational force weakens allowing the expansion to achieve its true rate.  
But gravity can have a positive affect on speed, if one assumes that the universe is being pulled towards something with greater gravity than the gravity between the known galaxies.  The big bang might, after all, have not been unique.  Perhaps there were 2, or 20, big bangs and some created universes more mass than our own, and it is their gravitational affect that is causing the expansion to speed up?  

Of course, I'm not a scientist.

Delmar: You're driving at 55mph in the middle lane of a highway and you look in your rear-view mirror to see two cars behind you, one much further back than the other, both gaining on you, but maintaining their speeds which are both narrowing the distance from you but at different rates. All of a sudden, the car further back starts gaining on you much more quickly than before, shrinking the distance between you and him and between him and the other car at a much quicker rate. You know this means that he has changed his rate of acceleration.

The two cars come up next to you and for a moment you are riding three abreast, then suddenly the car on your right slams on the gas pedal and zooms off towards the horizon. The car on your left steps on his gas pedal at the same time and accelerates past you, but taking a much greater time to disappear.

None of you were stationary, yet you have no problem determining who was traveling faster and who was accelerating faster. Nothing in the universe is stationary, so all motion is relative to the observer. That's what Einstein was on about.

How many different ways do you have to say "there is no acceleration without energy. "? I got it already!!How about this theory - Dark Matter is GOD.

Question: I know its established that expansion is accelerating, but what is the rate of change of that expansion? Has enough time elapsed since we first started measuring expansion to know? Because I've heard from a couple different places that the universe will expand until we can't see anything besides our local environment. But if the second or third derivative of expansion is negative, then this result is not the end, and the cyclic universe theories could still be true.

Our universe expand in the void.

Our universe expand because this "Perfect Void", witch is the "outside" of our universe, completely lacks "volumetric pressure".

Try to put an helium balloon outside the space shuttle...

Gravity is the only force out of the 4 that functions across all 11 dimensions. While relatively neglible here, it's effect is much more significant in the higher dimensions. Not only is gravity functioning across all dimensions, it is the only force that even exists in all 11 dimensions.

Would it stand to reason to postulate that forces beyond our observable universe are causing the cosmic expansion and acceleration and not Dark Energy or some other agent native to our known universe?  

Additionally, assuming the answer to the above question is a yes…can we then theorize that the known universe is expanding through a yet to be discovered medium with variable density?  And would it stand to reason to think that the variability within this medium is the agent behind cosmic acceleration or variations to this acceleration?

Hmmph... What if it turns out that from any one observer's viewpoint, given that the majority of the universe is outside of that observer's "light cone" (i.e. could be interpreted as moving away from that observer at FTL) then perhaps the "mass-in-motion" of that unviewable portion of the universe (infinity minus "viewable") acquires some "virtual" inertia -- which in an observer-independent frame might HAVE to appear as a repulsive force, acting to increase the known forces driving metric expansion?

For arguments sake...So if I fire a bullet from a gun and it travels through space for a million years, some alien might think that there must be a pull on it from dark matter because it sped up a little from a previous detection, while all along it got nudged by a micro comet that bumped into it a year earlier. Basically, I believe we just have the inability to count all the matter in the universe properly.

My point is that all these red shift and laws of physics pushers are clueless to the fact that it may not be what it seems...they're acting as if they have been 1,000 light years away and got accurate measurement. Also, red shift detection can be tainted by the "gazillion" tons of matter in between us and another body. So I wouldn't bet the house on red shift being as accurate as most think it is, especially if we are talking thousands of light years.

I don't get it.

A galaxy (or whatever) that is 10 billion light years away is accelerating faster than one that is 5 billion light years away. The astronomers tell us that when looking at these we are looking into the past. In other words, we are seeing the motion of these objects as it occurred 10 billion years ago in the one case and 5 billion years ago in the other. This is comparing apples and oranges because they talk about it as if we were observing the acceleration "now." On the other hand, it makes sense that if gravity is acting to slow things down...reducing the acceleration...something we are seeing 8 billion years after the Big Bang (5G light years away) should be accelerating slower than something we are seeing only 3 billion years after the BB (10G light years away).

Similarly, they say that everything is moving away from us but that the Milky Way will merge with Andromeda in 10 billion years or so. Further, they say that the farther away things are the faster they are accelerating away from us...Andromeda is moving toward us (or we we toward it)...is its acceleration relative to us slowing down as it gets closer? That's not the gravitational Physics I learned.

I'm not sure who needs to be explaining all of this better -- the astronomers or the media -- but somebody isn't making sense.

Let's presume that the Big Bang did happen, and that this caused the initial movement of matter away from a central point. This movement attained a certain sustained velocity, lessened somewhat by the gravitational attraction of one body of matter to another. In time, some of this matter coalesced into big enough clumps to become stars. Stars emit huge quantities of energy, radiation, and gasses. Why couldn't these emissions be sufficient to repel one body from another more than gravity would attract them, thus accelerating the expansion of distances between stars and, in a larger context, the universe itself?

With Ed Witten's M-Theory, all versions of superstring theories are united.  This led to the "Multiverse" proposal (www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotic ).  Within it, universes (like ours) are constantly being created and destroyed through the collision of infinitely-long 5-D parallel branes.  In fact, this so-called Ekyprotic model -- based on brane and string theories -- gives the same results as the Big Bang and Inflationary models but with an entirely different physics.

Time has no meaning in the "Multiverse".  Unlike our universe and others that will be created within, it will last forever.  Many physicists find this appealing as they do not have to grapple with the question of "What happened before the Big Bang?"

According to a version of string theory (see PBS/NOVA's "The Elegant Universe" => www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#NOVA ), gravitons exist as closed-loops -- unlike the string forces for the EM, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear -- which allows them to escape from the ZPE field.  This accounts for their seemingly small strength (10^39 weaker than the other 3 forces) but also allows for a tantalizing mechanism to communicate with these other 6-or-7 dimensions.

Perhaps dark matter-energy is related more to the "Multiverse" than the universes (like ours) which it contains.  Of course, there are other competing theories of everything such as Loop-Quantum Gravity (www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#LQG ), Matti Pitkanen's TopologicalGeometricDynamics (www.stealthskater.com/Pitkanen.htm ), and Tesla-based "scalar" electrodynamics (www.stealthskater.com/Bearden.htm ).  I'm sure the proponents of these offer their views on what "dark matter-energy" is according to their models.

Norm... then the universe would be ever-expanding (and perhaps never 'fall back'), and it might eventually 'peter-out' like this message thread.

"time and space constraints... prevent all comments from appearing"  ...perhaps like dark matter and dark energy

Not remembering anything from physics class... suppose there's a big boom... do the particles from said boom start out at maximum velocities and immediately thereafter expandingly slow down... or... do the particles initially break free slowly 'accelerating' to reach a maximum velocity from whence they slow down? And if the latter, could we, in the incomprehensible universal scale we live in, be in that 'acceleration' phase toward reaching maximum velocity yet to begin failing?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):