peadmore

The concepts of dark energy and dark matter have been brought into being to try to answer the many problematic questions thrown up by the big bang theory. There are alternatives to this theory and some of them expalin the evidence without dark matter or dark energy. sadly they don't get past the scrutiny of the almost religious like inquisitors of peer review inquisition. The apparent expansion of the universe can be easily explained if the universe is a super fluidic singularity, much the same as is claimed for the quark soup of the early big bang model and there is no need for dark matter or energy. In this case there was no beginning; there will be no end and entropy is a local and relative phenomena.

I would actually be very interested in your reply if I knew what it was you were talking about. It seems very much like another example of we don't actually know what happened so we'll fudge it. I have never heard a good explanation for why the big bang happened at all and there are other very good explanations for the evidence that is interpreted as the big bang. Have you ever thought of exploring these. Since Hubble nobody has seriously studied alternative explanations for the red shift, of which there are quite a few, and all have jumped on the big bang band wagon with religious like fervour. There are far too many problems arising out of this theory and throwing dark matter and energy in to patch up the holes doesn't help matters much either. Neither does it help to say that space is expanding and yet things are not moving away from each other; it is just an increase in the size of a light year. That is just semantics and means absolurtely nothing.