Dear Christian,
If in a cloud of hydrogen gas or plasma, particles behave in such a manner that they always feel an equally strong force from all directions, if the force on a particle from one direction, from its own cloud can only increase as it increases as much from the opposite direction, from neighboring clouds, then such clouds can only contract in concert. The energy exchange between the particles within the cloud then increases as much as their exchange with particles of neighboring clouds. The energy of the particles increases, the frequency they oscillate at, alternately borrow and lend energy from and to each other, so the cloud heats up as it contracts to a star. Whereas before their contraction, the position of the mass center of the clouds wasn't very well defined so gravity from any cloud was very weak, the position of their mass centers, their distance becomes less indefinite as they contract. Though this increased mass should lead to an increased gravity, the contraction also increases the gravitational field, its gradient. So if a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then the distance between the stars in statu nascendi as measured within their gravitational field increases as they contract. However, since their distance as measured outside their field, as calculated from their positions with respect to surrounding stars doesn't change very much, gravity from these stars in statu nascendi seems to decrease, so we assume that stars burn their mass, loose mass even if we ignore things like solar flares.
In a self-creating universe, however, the energy of the particles increases (agreeing with the uncertainty principle) as they contract, so the mass of the stars should increase as well, which it does. As a greater mass, a stronger gravity from the stars is counteracted by an increased distance as measured within their field, we erroneously assume their mass to decrease as they contract since we can only measure, calculate their distance from their positions with respect to more distant stars. It is the continuous energy exchange between the particles, combined with the fact that an energy increase tends to conserve itself in time (unlike a decrease), which powers this combined contraction and expansion. The greater the mass of an object, the greater its part in the creation process is, the stronger its (weak) gravity is. Like stars, galaxies only can contract in concert: as the energy of the galaxies increases as they contract to cluster, at the same time expanding spacetime between the clusters, we say that the universe expands.
This expansion mechanism differs fundamentally from the Big Bang tale according to which the motion of the clusters originates in an explosion, to be slowed down in time by gravity. When this was not observed, when instead, clusters proved to accelerate away from each other, a new theory had to be invented to repair another fatal flaw of the bang hypothesis: dark energy. You see that this nonsense isn't necessary in a self-creating universe which automatically produces the observed homogeneity and isotropy we see, the expansion of which obviously cannot decelerate.
The price we pay for believing in the naïve, religious view on the universe the bigbang tale represents is very high as it affirms our classical, false notion that particles only are the source of their interactions. By clinging to the bigbang tale, to the idea that particle properties are independent from their interactions, we make them incomprehensible. The result is that we condemn ourselves to invent unnecessary, nonsensical hypotheses and theories like cosmic inflation, string theory and fictitious (Higgs) particles. Being the product of fundamental misconceptions, intended to solve (or weep under the carpet) the many problems and inconsistencies of the bang tale, such theories and particles are part of the problem, not of its solution. The result is that one contradictory theory breeds the next inconsistent theory to appear consistent itself. As the bigbang scenario cannot explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, it needs an inflation theory to repair this fundamental flaw. This theory, in turn, cannot answer fundamental questions as to its mechanism, who/what determined the time to start the inflation, its rate, and when to stop. I'm sure someone will come up with a theory to 'explain' this, a theory which as it embroiders on a deeply flawed idea, in turn will evoke more questions than it solves, complicating matters even worse. I like to think that my essay offers a way out of the present stalemate.
Regards, Anton
