"Interesting. Can I see your math? I've seen the math on the other side of the question. But, you seem to have this down, so let's see your work. This will, no doubt, revolutionize physics. There's a Nobel Prize in your future, I expect." 
Instead of the math, you'd be more likely to understand that a force applied such that expansion overcame gravity (e.g. all mass first inside the area of a marble) was then overcome by gravity (e.g. the universe's "inflation" slowed) and then expanded again, but this time not as fast (i.e. Hubble and others have observed and confirmed that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate).
That's the "inflation" theory.
And when laid out like that you should be able to see why that theory is hooey.
"Instead of the math, you'd be more likely to understand that a force applied such that expansion overcame gravity (e.g. all mass first inside the area of a marble) was then overcome by gravity (e.g. the universe's "inflation" slowed) and then expanded again, but this time not as fast (i.e. Hubble and others have observed and confirmed that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate)."
Why don't you let me be the judge of what I'll be more likely to understand? Show me your math. I've seen the math for the other theory. Now, I'd like to see the math you use to refute it. If you need to send a .pdf file, you can freepmail me.
Based on your minimal textual explanation, I suspect you are misunderstanding the theory, but I can't tell without your calculations.