Maximus

Thanks Norman. One question (coz I'm fick) - how do we know the expansin of the Universe slowed down and then started to accelerate again. (I think I got that right!) Did it get a second wind? Maximus

Yes - I agree that the Big Bang is the start of the Universe so to speak. But if the Big Bang was an inflationary event, then that event would have momentum. It is this momentum that I refer to in my original posting, this could be profiled and graphed. so I still wonder whether we need Dark Matter to explain why the Universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion (if I understand it correctly). This could simply be based on the original momentum of the Big Bang itself. Call me simple - but it just seems such an obvious possibility to me! Though I cannot believe that scientist have not examined this before and dismissed it on the basis of some compelling evidence. (And hey - I'm NO scientist and have no real qualification in this arena.) Thanks again Maximus

I now have two trains of thought based on your reply. 1. If the Big Bang was not an explosion in the real sense with no inflationary property, then I can understand your response, as indeed the atomic particles and forces would have developed after the event. And as part of that process, maybe even Dark Matter could be formed. But this does not seem probable to me, as the Universe is observed to be expanding. 2. Perhaps our concept of the Big Bang is too restricted in terms of its time-frame and therefore no so useful for us. When I again consider the logic behind my first posting, I still feel that we could be in the latter part of the inflationary acceleration caused by the Big Bang (if you extend the big Bang's time frame). Would there be any basis for this line of thought or am I barking up the wrong tree? Thanks again Maximus

You know guys, what if dark matter just does not exist? For instance, the big Bang as it is known (and if correct), would be an "explosion" of such force and magnitude that it would be utterly beyond our comprehension. Especially if you consider the ever increasing size of the observable universe as seen through ever more powerful telescopes. In other words, the Big Bang would have to be an utterly staggering event to be able to create the sheer vastness and richness of the Universe that we can now see. So what I wonder is this - Surely an "explosion" such as this would have a profile like any other type of explosion - a trigger event, followed by an outward accelerating exansion, followed by a deceleration until all the energy released in the event had been spent, over a measurable period of time. Thus it is possible to both model the expolsion and graph it. (I realise that I am keeping this fairly simple to illustrate my point). Now my real point is this: Just suppose that the Big Bang was not over yet - that it is in fact still happening. The sheer size of the Big Bang could mean that its profile could extend over many millions or even perhaps billions of years, so we could be in a moment of time that is still on the "event curve" so to speak. Depending on where we may be on the "event curve" we could be at a point in time where the final stages of the accelerating expansion are not quite over and so we see the Universe as being in a state of accelerating expansion. In this scenario there is no need for dark matter or any other invisible, unmeasureable, theoretically unproven matter or forces. Question: Does anyone know of any conclusive research that shows that the Big Bang event is actually finished? If so, please let me know as I would really like to get this off my mind. Many thanks for listening. Maximus