Is the universe is decelerating or accelerating?

Are you are an open minded individual that thinks for yourself or is your knowledge the result of a google search and quoting established scientists? Please give me a chance to change our understanding of the nature of our Universe, or if you prefer, correct the errors in my logic.

This is an issue that has bothered me for quite some time; I have reviewed the current descriptions concerning the dimness of distant type 1a supernovas and have decided that the universe is decelerating, not accelerating, as taught by mainstream science.

First, I must state that I am not challenging the discovery that distant type 1a supernovas are dimmer than a linear rate of expansion would have predicted. This is an observational “fact”. What I find faulty is the common interpretation that this dimming of distant 1asn’s indicates “acceleration”.

The following the information represents the accepted “mainstream” description of the expansion of space-time.

1998 "Science" had the discovery that the universe was “accelerating” as the science discovery of the year. A couple of links below also espouse or explain this description.

http://www.lbl.gov/supernova/
http://www.urich.edu/~ebunn/phys131/jerk/11COSM.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000212/bob1.asp

The graphical representation of the velocity distance relationship for 1asn’s is as follows.
http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/public/...ysicsToday.pdf

Note that the recessional velocity of the supernova is on the x axis, ( a measure indicated by z) , and the distance or look back time, as determined by brightness, is on the y axis. This is not the “standard” way to represent a graphical presentation of acceleration, which is usually a velocity versus time graph. This unconventional presentation of data is because the red shift z, is easy to measure accurately, and the distance measures derived from the light curve durations/intensity of 1asn’s are more subject to variation, manipulation, and interpretation.

Now it is important to establish definitions that all parties agree on.

Deceleration. An object that moves faster in the past than the present is defined as decelerating.
Acceleration. An object that moves slower in the past than the present is defined as accelerating.

If I walked into a room at 5 miles an hour and slowed to 0 by the time I reached the far wall, I would describe my motion as decelerating. Every observer in the room would also describe my motion as deceleration.

Graphically this looks like…

( Since I do not know how to present a graph on this posting I am putting the graphs up at my web site.
www.uniformexpansion.com. The link to the specific page with graphics is http://d77591.u25.existhost.com/gpage13.html)

An object moving faster in the past than the present indicates deceleration.

The further away a galaxy is, the further in the past it is observed.
The more in the past the galaxy is observed, the faster it’s observed recessional velocity.
A galaxy moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating; our universe is decelerating.

An observer on a nearby galaxy would observe our galaxy in “motion” as it “presently” occurs. An observer on a far off galaxy would be observing our galaxy’s cosmological expansion as it occurred in the past. Our own galaxy would be observed to have a cosmological expansion rate that was faster in the past than the present. All galaxies would be perceived as moving faster in the past than the present. Our universe is decelerating.

When astronomers are describing the universe as “accelerating” they really mean that the rate of deceleration appears to be slower in the past and faster in the present. This is opposite of what was expected. The rate of expansion of space-time was expected to be very fast when the universe began, and the rate should have slowed down at the greatest rate when the universe was young, due to gravitational interaction; When the Universe is young, everything is “close” increasing the results of gravitational interaction. When the universe is older and galaxies are spread far apart, the slowing effect of gravity should diminish the rate of deceleration. Since this is not what is “observed”, this has resulted in the description of the expansion of space-time as being “accelerated”. It is also the reason that additional “dark energy” and a “cosmological constant” has been assumed to occur at specific evolutionary times of our universe.

While the rate of deceleration appears to be slower in the past than the present, the overall description of the expansion of the universe is of a continuous deceleration.

This contradictory or unexpected rate of expansion in terms of it’s deviance from expected gravitational predictions has resulted in a number of complications and a resurrection of the Cosmological Constant. A series of “fudge factors” are being incorporated into the models of General Relativity to account for the effect, which, as far as I am concerned, indicates that mainstream cosmology does not have a grasp of the situation. This is also indicated by the incorrect description of the expansion of space-time as “acceleration”.

I do not wish to diverge too much from the original posting, but I should state that my proposed uniform expansion theory resolves the conflict. The rate of expansion is actually as expected, fastest at the beginning of time and continuously slowing down; The curve describing the rate of expansion is not flat as one approaches the beginning of time, but increases dramatically as one approaches the beginning of time, as expected based upon principles of gravitational interaction and what one would expect when envisioning a “big bang”. The assumption that distant type1a supernova’s are exactly the same as local supernovas is flawed. Since the effect of gravity is a function of time, (according to my theory, (which was a belief held by Dirac and Gamow)), the further in the past a supernova is observed, the smaller it is, since it takes less mass for a star to supernova. Since a supernova’s size is reduced, the amount of light produced is less. This results in the impression that the supernova is further away than expected; in actuality (according to predictions of uniform expansion theory) they are closer. Instead of a flattening of the curve describing the velocity of distant 1asn’s, the curve increases upwards at an ever increasing rate.)

Irregardless of the application of my Uniform Expansion Theory to negate the need for a Cosmological Constant and eliminate the arbitrary applications of Dark Energy at various stages of cosmic evolution to account for the unexpected dimness of “high” red shift supernovas, the first point still remains, at all times the expansion of space time is always slowing down. The universe is decelerating.

Snowflake