shmengie

You are all right, to a degree. And to a degree your also wrong. I've just about finished reformulating a title. I'm going to leave it up to you and the scientific community at large, for judge, jury and mathematical execution. After the title, I'll clearly outline a the few states of affair, as I understand, iterate a few problems *I*believe*I*have*solved* and the descriptions. Once that's done, the math will flow into place. It won't change much anything, after all some theory is only applicable in theory. But you'll fully grasp the concept I've been trying to convey, and what's better you'll do the math for me Unfortunately, I'm in a state of *know* that's limited on proof. Half the problem I've had to date, is not knowing how to define the problem. Couple of unexpected leaps straddled that tho. I'm being a little secretive or obscure, because of greed. I'm inclined to believe it's unjustified and/or silly. But I've figured out how to explain my thesis so anyone could understand. Now I need to put it down in a couple pictures and the right amount of words, so you can enjoy the laugh at my expense, or visa-verca. (is that misspelled incorrectly right?)

My epiphany borders philosophical more than theoretical. Stems from trying to explain my thesis. Once I started the picture in my head it simplified some understanding. Started associating other aspects and it all seems to fit. I'm probably a kook, but once you visualize it as I have, read a fairly short explanations, it might be really easy for you to say right or wrong. If its right, it might help simplify understandings of relativity. It's not a new concept, simple extrapolation of an existing visualization of relativity. I think I've figured out exactly how/why things appear to be moving away. Thought it would be easy to visualize with words I wrote earlier. I can understand why its not, but I've got a picture in my head. Once I have the right visual props, it'll be clearer. Especially if I write the right words. Why does steady state require tossing GR or conservation? My abundance of ignorance leaves me dumbfounded. If I was to push steady state, I would choose to incorporate them, not toss 'em. If steady state only applied to space-time and the principles were applied to mass in the same fashion... Would the universe look any different? Not once you understand my thesis, I expect... Sounds like a simple definition of my present goal, if I can achieve it w/out math, simply describing the principles as I understand, I might be able to achieve it. Eureka, I think I've got it! Its simple! Maybe this simple. Steady state and expansion are both wrong, but they're also both right, presumably to differing degrees. --Doesn't qualify as an oxymoron, or does it? Might need to restrict use of that word for to application to me. Its highly philosophical but what it boils down too is this. There's a lot right about Lambda-CDM. One thing seems wrong (cough) Dark Energy (cough). I don't know much about steady state, perhaps I need to learn or instead... Work up a plausible alternative to both, which has been something science has all but neglected to do. There's no reason there should be only two running arguments, is there?

I don't find it strange that you would say that, however, for some Strange reason its seemed that way. This thread has encouraged me to iterate my thesis in the fewest nouns, verbs and adjectives ever. I started the thread looking for the answers I expected, hoping for something I hadn't yet considered as yet. What I got was mostly expected, so far no new concepts I hadn't considered (that I know of) or am capable of recognizing. Aside from seeming a little Strange at times, a lot of the material you've presented will most likely help narrow down the search for the thing I think is missing. For that I'm grateful. Earlier in another thread on a different board, discussing a completely different topic, I had another "ooh shiat" experience. Doubt it means much, but I'm having a hard time containing excitement. That's exhilarating, but my dumb ass gotta figure out if what I think is missing, really is missing. I didn't realize I was arguing for steady state. I never studied steady state, to any length. I ruled it out because it wasn't accepted, and for the most part every argument I heard against it seemed right. I gave more weight to BB and rooted for it instead. I have to rethink that stance and have you (people) to thank for that. I've been leaning in that direction for a while and didn't even realize it. Thanks!!! Seems when one contemplates steady state, one tends to apply steady to both space/time and mass. But for every star to be distributed evenly, would that not require mass to be steady also. But if mass was steady, wouldn't it be in possible for a star to form in the first place? No, I think steady state need only apply to space-time. Fluctuation with initial mass distribution seems like an equal problem for steady state and inflation. Lambda-cdm has more ppl working on it, but it seems to me doesn't matter if you which you go with, you need to figure out the order of change in the rules physic, to get the answer right. This I see as a a conundrum, because if they all didn't change at the same time, you'll never prove which changed first because the last one that changed, will make the math different for all the others and inevitably cannot be proven. Seems to me like mass formation had to happen then gravity took hold. Could be mass formed after gravity took hold but if you can't nail those two down, you simply cannot go further back in time, if time wasn't last to the game... LOL Sorry I ramble when I contemplate that shit. Nice to do it more than just inside my head. I've got an exceedingly simplified model of the universe rolling around in my head. I'm dying to share it, but I gotta learn some really good math first. Because I want that damn prize. If I'm right I think I'll deserve it and you won't believe how simple it is. FFFrrruukk!@#$!@$ I'm not getting any sleep tonight, probably none the for rest of the month... I don't know if it'll answer any of those questions just posed, but it might be the next step in that direction. LOL - I'm brewing coffee. I don't need coffee. Need to calm down and go to sleep. Want ppl to sign NDAs, but it might be too simple for that. Can it be that simple? Well, well, well. Now I want bragging rights before I deserve them. Not going to stop me from trying I think what I've got would enable explaining many if not all principles of relativity to a child inside an hour and they'd fully understand the concepts. I must be off my rocker by some Strange order of magnitude... Next time I explain my thesis, I suspect it won't be because I don't include math, not necessarily be because I'll use any. But when you see it, your jaw might literally drop and I might go out of my way not to use any just for spite . I am beginning to believe I need someone to tell me to STFU and go to bed. But I can't sleep... And I can't think clearly because I need sleep. -- Wrote a python program today. Quoted a guy under 4 hours based on specs, took 6. But the specs were ambiguous on a few points and took at least an hour to straighten 'em. Gave me a nice kick in the logic pants, think he's impressed, will find out tomorrow, if I ever wake up. -trying to distract myself. I do need sleep. But its getting too late... COFFEE!!!!!!!! I think I can explain dark energy and dark mass (not matter per se, maybe that too) in only of couple of sentences, that will give the jaw a drop and be terribly difficult to refute. My math has been reduced to Einstein simplicity, tho I haven't written it yet... IF Einstein's isn't complete. It's got some unification potential, actually, the idea borders unification, if not precisely that. A Clue: one idea done in about ~ 1000 words ~ maybe less, tho I might be off by an order of magnitude there... Hope I can share it soon. I don't believe the idea will resolve inflation vs. steady state, nor address it in any way shape or form, other than redshift. OKAY, just so I can say I said it first: I'm a CRACKPOT. One who needs to STFU and sleep or work, don't matter so long as I get the STFU part right. If know a viable and/or digital NDA we could use, I'd love the bounce the idea off ya, the NDA doesn't have to be iron clad, the idea is really kinda simple. Once it gets out, I think it'll roll like a snowball. But then, I am a flip'n crackpot. But wouldn't harm having an NDA. Might be able to limit the NDA to the titile if I can figure out the right one. The idea isn't quite new, but rather a twist on one that's been around for a while. But once you see it, you'll understand, maybe whole a lot, I don't know, once you get the simplicity of it, you won't be able to forget it. Not kidding! You might ppffft and blow me off, then it'll click, then the jaw drops. Its okay tho. You'll just be a broken crackpot like me. The title could be "A Quantum Spin on Relativity with Universal Unification Implication" that doesn't give it away, but it really is only a small spin on relativity, which may have a lot of implications, not so sure about unification tho. Yeah, I like it better w/out unification, in the title, don't know about the logistics.

Strange stated I don't understand logic. I beg to differ, but that's more or less a moot point. AFAIK. Dark Energy is a problem with BB. I like solving logic problems. There are two ways one can tackle the problem of Dark Energy. conceive new explainable properties of the force or find an error in it's calculation So far, I've failed miserably on the conception of new explainable properties. Don't believe I'm alone in that, but thus far the evidence supports it current conclusion. While the hamster runs perpetually spinning my cogs, I've approached it from the 2nd line as well. The 1st line of attack for me is the pillar of light shift. I started wondering about it quite a few years ago. Now I've not worked the math out, still endeavouring to learn all the greek symbols and their multiple concept representations. Not an easy task, I suspect you know. At either rate, I *think* I understand most concepts w/out symbol knowledge. Perhaps you guys think that's impossible, seems like the thesis, in respect to, your regard for me. Don't blame you there, you've probably spent a whole lot more time learning 'em I have. Alright, well, anyway... I think I hit a nail one day. The little bit of greek I think I understand, so far, has indicated that the piece of the puzzle I *think* I understand is missing, and its still missing. I first thought I had more create equations, haven't ruled that out because I don't know all the existing math. Sometimes I fear it's more than I can learn, but hasn't stopped me from working on it. -- Just because a person doesn't know the symbols commonly used for concepts, doesn't mean they can't grasp the concepts. But it makes it hard to communicate using the symbols when you don't know them. Especially when your understanding of concepts and pictures in your head that have nothing to do with the overloaded greek symbol zoo. While you might view lack of formal education as hindrance, it might be advantageous to envision concepts from outside the "accepted" box. For once a thing is "known" it simply cannot be "unknown". At present, the piece of the puzzle that I think is missing, I haven't found an association to a greek symbol, for. But that' doesn't mean it's not been done already, only that I have either not read enough, or viewed the right equation. I don't know... Okay, now ridicule me some more. I need a good excuse to play the martyr!-)

I've been working on it, for the sake of progress. I call myself foolish because it is pretty silly to go against accepted. Giordano Bruno fate isn't so likely in modern times, but one must expect to at least be shunned or demeaned as Strange has toward me... Least you haven't called me a crackpot this time, nor have I (yet). Alternative principles are almost always deemed wrong, up to the point they're accepted. I hope I'm right, or my reasoning at least makes sense to others. I've directed a lot of thought into it. Seems like a viable alternative to the "accepted" concept. Fits with GR with a minor adjustment it provides an explanation for Dark Energy. You might not like me for it. You entitled to believe I'm flat out wrong. But a simple explanation of Dark Energy could be in front of you and not change much of anything. If your one of the first to deny it, that's no surprise, it's expected.

I'm working on my issues with math. But I'm a bit slow I don't know what a good "one one expansion" is, my ignorance is plentiful. In essence, my postulation revolves around exchanging distance expansion to reference of time dilation. Never seen a simulation, other than the version in my minds eye. I would like to see how that of my own differs from another. Well, I know I'm a foolish individual to even contemplate going against "accepted" principles... Dark Energy is a 4th unresolved issue I associate with bb/Lambda-cdm. However, by exchanging distance to time dilation, the need for unexplained energy causing shift is negated because it associates the phenomena with gravity. The biggest problem I've encountered so far: Explaining the scale factor of the Hubble parameter. Best guess thus far; contraction rate increases as mass concentration increases.

I don't view the whole model as wrong, tho I see a flaw in a pillar of it. Distribution of mass changes. The order of change appears to be from even distribution of mass to localized concentrations. I believe a consequence is as such: Flux in the field of gravity tends toward 0 in regions void of mass. Further I believe: light shifts toward red in the regions it traverses as time accelerates there, as the distribution evolves. Perhaps I should say I speculate??? I'd like to write it down in a simple equation, but that ability is beyond me. I don't know how to prove it right or wrong, but it seems like a logical explanation for redshift. Also seems to negate need for Dark Energy, which seems rather encouraging. My gut feeling is that its so simple it has to be right. But its a totally different view of accepted principle, so it must be wrong. Ya got me. Yall told me about a year ago it was nobel worthy if it's right. Maybe... Needs more refinement, IMO. I suspect its got merit. Anybody wanna help? I'm still working on it.

I have continued my education beyond scholastic and pop-sci endeavors. Those condensed iterations of the big bang may have helped culminate the premise of my thesis, they're not what it's based on. I don't base my argument on pop-sci foobar. I quest the truth, were there only one tenant of science, that would not be it? Science is a wealth of human knowledge based on the evidence afforded by nature. I figure any principle must start with an idea. Tested, observed, etc. once proven false its modified to fit the evidence or simply remains false. Okay, demean me and/or thesis however you like... When I use my imagination and envision the universe as a singularity... I conclude that implies existence of a multiverse. Not because I'm willy-nilly making stuff up based on faith or pop-sci. It's simple logic. Singularity exists somewhere, some place and/or sometime or another verse. If it expanded, that implies it expanded in something else, another universe perhaps? Every way I look at this one issue of BB, it inescapably implies multiverse. But there is no empirical evidence I'm aware of to indicate a multiverse. Not because I have search for it... Only that I've not found it. Lets ignore the multiverse aspect. Where's the center. If everything started from a point that also implies a center. No evidence. We must ignore the central issue. Okay what about velocity of expansion having an effect on distribution of matter. Nope. That doesn't apply. Three separate issues, I can't fathom a method to resolve with concepts of BB. They cause me to question an expanding universe. I'd like to see evidence that resolves any of these issues, but don't believe it exists. Now you can say it's faith, or lack of scientific understanding if you like, but I see as opposing that fashion, with reason. So I introduced this thread of discussion vaguely on purpose. My intention was not to receive, emotional gut response, bah, he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's saying. No I sought definitive answers to the question I posed, with reason. I got the ones I was expecting and hopefully achieved an interest in my thesis. My thesis goes against the grain of Lambda-cdm. I know that. I know doing so will provokes the automatic emotional response. I've been working on this postulation for a few years now. Not because I want to be different. Its because I believe I seek the truth. I know I could be wrong. But what if I'm right and never prove it? Once I'm dead, it's too late to fix a problem whether it exists or not.

If no one treats it as doppler, why is it frequently referred to as such and expansion thought to be the cause of shift? Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points (alternatively "particles"), bodies (objects), and systems of bodies without consideration of the masses of those objects nor the forces that may have caused the motion. My premise is that shift is caused by mass reorganization. Which does rely that a doppler effect is wrong. If doppler is wrong, does that not lend credence to my interpretation? I suppose you could look at that as a problem. But the scaffolding for CMBR to agree Lambda-CMD is very complex and not terribly difficult argue past. I can suppose a large number of completely different reasons for excess heat in the beginning. Its a problem for Lambda-CDM or any postulation of a beginning or start. Boils down to the simple fact we have clue what causes matter to exist. I suspect the laws of physics changed which is more or less what Lambda-CDM boils down to at that point. You can call it my problem if you like. Seems quite universal to me, any change in physical construction of the universe would likely result in very hot topic. Your right, it is currently my personal belief. Unfortunately that places me squarely in the minority, with an inverse square statistical chance of escaping. I believe the "accepted" is inaccurate in interpretation of evidence. I've deduced a logical sequence of events for things to be interpreted as such. I've tried to keep my emotional attachments out of reason, but at the end of the day, that's what caused me to start down this path. I believe I've found a better interpretation for a cosmological scale issue. If you insist that I'm wrong, I'll reply with a very simple question: Why does cosmological redshift require a scale factor to increase? I'll be working on answering that with mass reorganization, not adjusting the laws of physics in the past.

I can't argue that I don't have an emotional attachment to my argument. It provides a passion for the truth, without, I probably wouldn't continue to argue. Neither of which makes my premise either right or wrong. Science often requires passion. Especially when the accepted terminology is misinterpreted. I fear I'm the only one who sees the flaw, as such. Now this ant needs a lot of passion to move the mountain.

Oh, my bad, it's not gaining momentum, it's accelerating. I phrased it wrong? What was embarrassing about kinematic interpretation. The definition clearly asserts mass is not considered. That doesn't make my premise wrong, instead, It suggests the opposite. Fortunate or not, a lot of my education comes from mass media science, history channel and pbs nova, etc. Every time they iterate BB it starts with Hubble constant/doppler as first evidence. I understand now that the expansion rate, constant has been view in terms of GR as gravitational shift. All that magic w/numbers really complicates the issue, because the underlying premise is still wrong IMO. The universe is not expanding, I sincerely doubt it ever has. There's a lot more work ahead, to prove it. I don't believe the universe has expanded. I don't believe it is expanding nor accelerating. I think there is a flaw in the interpretation of shift. Because I don't ride the mathematician horse of luxury, nor possess a lot of formal education it's going to be a difficult span for me to navigate. -- Here's my logical premise, incase you chose to ignore it earlier. The shift in light is caused by reorganization of mass, not universal expansion. I believe the change over time of mass distribution causes shift and appears as and believed to be the expansion. It's not a change in principles of GR or physics, but instead a change in interpretation of the mechanics. I can understand this premise is going to meet a lot of difficulties. #1 it goes against the basis of Lambda CDM and will be resisted for that reason alone, tho that's not the only one. The concept of an expanding universe has support from many different angles with a large body of evidence that's developed to support it. I find it encouraging that cosmological shift is considered gravity shift as opposed to doppler, even tho its almost always referred to as doppler like effect. That will ease some difficulties I didn't know how to overcome.

Okay, I see my mistake, to a degree. I read it as tho they said it was valid to choose Minkowskian space. The synopsis states the opposite. However, having not read the paper, I'm at a loss and rely on the definition Kinematics which states "without consideration of the masses". Left me to conclude gravity is not taken into account. I'm working my way thru the paper now, but seems I'm going to have to read it a few times, to decipher (hopefully) their claims. FWIW: I don't ride the horse of luxury.

I got a good laugh out of that one, thanks. I claim gravity is ignored in preference to doppler: Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points (alternatively "particles"), bodies (objects), and systems of bodies without consideration of the masses of those objects nor the forces that may have caused the motion. Much like Rodney Dangerfield, gravity gets no respect, or rather, no consideration. Bunn and Hogg's obfuscate ignoring effect of gravity with term Kinematics. Doesn't change the fact that it's ignored, they say in novel way its too difficult to view so its preferred to be viewed in a doppler frame. I think their approach to ignoring gravity is novel. Seems to me they state outright the concept of inertial reference complicates things. We're going to omit inertial reference with Minkowskian space and not going to bother with gravity at all... They don't touch on my underlying premise, that the flux effects voided space. I think I'm getting closer to narrowing it down to simpler terms, but I seem to make only a little progress once in a while. If gravity field in the void continues weakening, which is the gist of my premise. The entropy like effect is that time is accelerating in voided regions. If rate of time increases that could manifest as light shifting toward red. I'm still trying to reason out varying rates of redshift termed cosmological shift. I will insist on claiming cosmological shift is merely a term, because there is no empirical evidence to support it. The only evidence for it is distance correlation in cosmological observations. Doesn't solidify as empirical, IMO, primarily because it's not testable or verifiable in any other fashion. I find that horrifyingly ironic because even if ppl agree with me about the principle of gravity field weakening, it wouldn't be verifiable in any other fashion either.

Haven't quite forgot that. If you eliminate Dark Energy, that's what 68% of stuff... Are black holes considered visible or dark, to have always existed or thought have once been to be baryonic mass? (pun? this matters!) I heard once that mass of central black holes are approx. equal to the mass of its host galaxy. I expect the approximation will continue to fluctuate. I understand its far easier to scale cosmological shift to an approximation. When I contemplate gravity causing the shift, I find its difficult, at best. It's not just one place or mass that is variable to be accounted, it's everywhere. Makes it a terribly complex problem to resolve. I can't help but suspect, cosmological redshift a likely consequence of gravity shift, not necessarily a third type shift. Tho I understand there's plenty good reason to consider it as such. Wish I knew Einstein and could bounce the idea off him.

No that's not my "issue" at all. I understand there is a cause of red shift not accounted for in the accepted model. Principles of cosmological redshift are based on solely on doppler reasoning. I don't understand that, it seems illogical to me. If you follow the sequence/flow of the evolution of the universe proposed by Lambda-CDM: There was a point in time (a beginning) which the universe was homogeneous. That basically means matter was distributed evenly. We understand that gravity is a field property of mass that proportional in strength to inverse square distance from mass. If/when the matter in the Universe was homogeneously distributed that field would also be distributed homogeneously. As time passes, or so it seems, mass collapses into stars, galaxies and black holes. If the field of gravity is stronger near concentrated bodies of mass, it therefor must weaken in the regions of space now void of mass. Light traverses least obstructed in the vacuum of space that is now void of mass. Because mass collapse is not instantaneous it is assumed to have happened and continues to happen over the course of the evolution of the universe. This all seems like physical phenomena that is happening, but it is not yet accounted for in Lambda-CDM principles. I believe this change in gravity/mass distribution would produce redshift in light, likely to match cosmological redshift, but I have no equations to support it. All equations and support for Lambda-CDM, refer to a static field of gravity. Gravity is not static. Its strength is the inverse square to distance from a collection of mass identified as static. The universe is not a steady state and it doesn't present static characteristics, so why is gravity always treated as if static? One might assume because it makes the equations a lot easier to comprehend.

You have me at a bit of a disadvantage here, because I have not figured out all variables required to formulate an equation. I could use some assistance. Not that I expect any, but it would be helpful. Would like others to appreciate the issue identified and help to reason out a viable alternative. I don't explain obler's paradox. I find Lambda-CDM consistent up to the point where gravity comes to exists. Prior to that point, I cannot conceive. I have no clue about what caused matter to exist. I find Lambda-CDM somewhat plausible, doesn't mean its wrong or right. Our resources are limited, that's common knowledge, AFAIK. -- all of which, I find troubling, though its probably no different than most. As I understand, Professor Einstein found that terribly troubling as well. He deduced that a cosmological constant was required to keep stars and galaxies from all congregating in a center of the universe. Trouble is that mass does congregate, but there may be no center, seems to appear as filaments of congregation. Certainly suggests the Universe isn't static or it may suggest there's no need for a constant. I haven't studied the CMBR. I'm compelled to resolve my issues with redshift first. Hot pre-matter could have been from a singularity, couple of membranes colliding or who knows what. All which could be a bang of sorts, all of which are highly speculative and thus impossible to resolve. Seems CMBR is the clearest picture of the primordial soup and it looks fuzzy to me. I can't, nor do I try. I refer to answer #4 for my ambivalence. I wouldn't say any of this is "easy." It all seems highly speculative and virtually pointless, because belief in these concepts, doesn't affect reality.

Gravitational shift is dismissed because it works both ways when emitted from a deep well and received in a the same. What's not accounted for is the change over time of the distribution of mass.

Gravitational shift and doppler shift are two known explanations for light shift. My explanation was curt. Shifting light is the only known evidence supporting that the Universe is expanding or has ever expanded. There are two "known" reasons for shift. Cosmological shift is hypothesized only on the basis of doppler. Lambda-CDM indicates at/when gravity became a force the distribution of matter was flat. We don't know how or why gravity came to be but it did, we assume. A consequence of matter distribution is the distribution of the field of gravity. It is believed the Universe evolved into what we can see now. Along with this evolution, the distribution of the field of gravity changed. This change in distribution is completely unaccounted for in cosmological shift. I see that as a flaw, I do not know how to prove. That's not necessarily emotionally subjective. Its the facts as I understand them.

I'd really like to know what other observational evidence there is for the cosmo expanding than redshift. To my knowledge there is none. Light shifts based on two known principles doppler shift and Einstein shift (aka gravity shift). Einstein theorized gravitational shift somewhere around the same time the Hubble constant/parameter was established. Einstein shift was later proven. Did Hubble know about gravity shift? Unlikely. Would that aspect change his thesis ??? Don't know. But things were accepted, because there were only two competing hypothesis for the evolution of the universe. One BB and the other Steady state. Steady State sounds (to me) totally unreasonable, so it makes sense that BB was the "accepted." I hear the Universe is not only expanding but gaining momentum but the only evidence that supports it has two completely different explanations. The fact that one explanation is all but completely ignored and/or not taken into consideration, makes absolutely no sense. Seems highly unreasonable and anti-scientific.

I posed the topic of this thread as such, because I seek knowledge. The is only one piece of evidence, to my knowledge, that the Hubble constant was reasoned. At the time it was formed, the other explanation was only theorized and since been proven. Stands to reason that the "accepted" consensus flowed in the direction it did and still does. But it also stands to reason that its flawed, based on order of understanding. I'd like to prove the flaw I seen in BB, but it seems beyond my ability. Instead, I must persuade the "accepted" to understand reason. Seems darn near impossible, but stranger things have happened. I'm only referencing what I believe could be considered common knowledge.

I understand there aren't many avenues of exploration available. I also understand that the one piece of evidence that seems concrete, has two differing explanations. Seems highly unreasonable to me that one explanation is given credence, while the other is ignored. The Lambda-CDM model relies on a constant G to afford a varying distance. There's a lot of ppl that believe the Universe is expanding, on very shaky reasoning, IMO. CMBR isn't evidence, it's an explanation for the 2.7K reading which could be caused by cooling or heating, for which we have no conclusive evidence that either occurred.

To my knowledge, there is only one form of evidence that suggests the Universe is or has ever expanded. Is there any corroborating evidence, aside from hypothesis?

I understand the two experiments sought different answers, but are the question really different?

I think it's pretty bogus that they always iterate the lambda-cdm as if it's the way it is. They really should indicate that its the most accepted group of postulations. Cosmological redshift is the only evidence for "dark energy" They don't come out and say it that way, but in truth, that's the only evidence indicating an expanding universe. There are other flaws with big bang, such as everything originating from a infinitely small point, but figuring out a viable alternative is pretty tough, I get a little stumped in contemplating it. Steady state is the only competing postulation, but it seems evident stuff in the universe doesn't sit still, which makes BB more the defacto standard, not necessarily more plausible, IMO. Seems the only thing about the whole big bang rendition I personally agree with is when matter, time and gravity all took hold, the universe was probably nothing more than a giant cloud everywhere. Everything stated, prior to that beginning point, can only be postulated or speculated. Corroborating evidence doesn't exist. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be that temp for any number of reasons. Inflationary temperature prediction doesn't quite make concrete evidence. Its suggestive, not concrete. Although I get totally lost trying to follow the calculations... I can't help but think there could be more than one reason for CMBR to be 2.7k.

TY