JSS wrote:So you are assuming that the "points" are being emitted by the Earth?
For every "point" being emitted, there must be a point being absorbed (conservation of the mass). I think that would cancel the effect that you are talking about.
Then I haven't explained myself properly. I am assuming a simple model of the big bang; I've no idea where it came from, or who put it there, but once upon a 13.78 billion years ago, there was a tiny speck and now there's a bloody great universe. The two are the same thing.
If something like that is true, then without any fear of contradiction one can say that tiny speck has a mind-boggling capacity for expansion. More contentious is my assumption that the speck is 'material', it is big bang stuff, and that any point in the speck of big bang stuff is expanding and exerts a pushing, repulsive force on its co-expanding neighbours. I'm sure that is as clear as mud, but 'points' are not emitted as such, they are just any rapidly expanding geographical location in a rapidly expanding speck.
In the turbulent mayhem of the early universe, it came to pass that some of the maelstroms were self propagating and others symbiotic, and verily, these became 'particles'. Note that particles are, according to this story, concentrated big bang stuff, hence the refractive source of gravity, but big bang stuff keeps expanding and below an entirely ad hoc threshold, the push overcomes the pull. Hey presto, dark energy.
Anyway, the mass of a particle is a basically how tightly it is wound, so no, points are not absorbed.