Summations Only

He wasn't swearing. You asked him what he thought of your idea, he told you. There's no language provision in the Forum Guidelines, and this is the Free For All forum anyway, where there's no moderation and anything goes.I think your time would be better spent repairing the tile in your kitchen. Maybe it'll turn out to be something you're good at, something that's certainly not true of science.--Percy

I can only repeat what I already told you way back in Message 72. When the expansion settled down after the period of inflation around 13.8 billion years ago, it was decelerating. The expansion was decelerating for billions of years until it began accelerating between 5 and 10 billion years ago. This is from the Wikipedia article on the Accelerating Universe: A redshift of z~0.5 corresponds to around 5.5 billion years ago. Here's an excerpt from the abstract of a technical paper titled The Turning Point for the Recent Acceleration of the Universe with a Cosmological Constant: A red shift of .67 corresponds to about 9 billion years ago. Gee, Peter, how could you not know that the expansion hasn't always been accelerating? Yes, we know you think this. So since the expansion was decelerating until around 5 billion years ago when it began accelerating, how did an outward expansion suddenly become an inward expansion?--Percy

The period of decelerating expansion I referred to was not inflation, see my previous message for more info.--Percy

When you start being scientific then people will treat what you say scientifically. Until then I think most here would agree that that earthy Anglo Saxonism is the best characterization.Obviously you're *trying* to be scientific, but you're failing miserably.--Percy

This again sounds like you're referring to a transition period between the end of inflation and the beginning of a normal universe. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with inflation. The end of inflation was around T=10^-32 seconds, and I'm talking about a period well after that.I do have a question, though. Why do you say the expansion rate at that time would "necessarily" have been slowing? There seems no reason to presume that. It could as easily have been accelerating. It would have been a function of the density of the universe at the end of inflation.Anyway, ignoring the inflationary period, the rate of expansion in the early universe was decelerating until somewhere between 5 and 10 billion years ago, and after that it began accelerating.Maybe while we figure out what each other is saying it will set an example for Peter of what a scientific dialog really looks like.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Peter, trust me, no one here is talking about the unobservable universe. When we say "universe" we're talking about the observable universe. We know the rate of expansion of the universe was slowing until 5 to 10 billion years ago, and then the expansion started accelerating. We know this because of observations of type 1a supernova. In case there's any doubt in your mind, these observations were of the observable universe.--Percy

Peter, I think you must be having a conversation with the voices in your head, because you didn't respond to anything I actually said. You know, about how the universe's expansion was decelerating until about 5 to 10 billion years ago. And that would mean the expansion was outward until then.--Percy

--Percy