finds the fit of Type Ia supernovae to a model universe with no dark energy to be very slightly better than the fit to the standard dark energy model.

I merely used 13.7 billion because that is the going guess.
I too believe it is inaccurate and the Big Bang/Big Crunch theories hold no value.

If you are interested look into Vacuum Energy and Planck Constant.
Specifically the spontaneous generation of matter and antimatter from energy. Merely another theory but any theory can be as valid or invalid as any other theory because they are theories. Sometimes called Zero-Point Energy.

You may also find these two videos on The Cosmological Constant interesting. They are quite long and are lecture type videos.

Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum and the Cosmological Constant, Part I ~ from MIT OpenCourseWare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKPswx4hjec
The Cosmological Constant, Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Ot1PTuUv4&t=15s

I also recall a simplified version of the Cosmological Constant as a segment of an episode of the TV show The Universe but I don't recall the episode or have a link to a video of it.

Remember that not all scientists give credence to all theories. Depending on who is writing or who you ask even string theory is subjective to acceptance. The same was said about quantum theory until it became quantum mechanics.

Having no career or reputation on the line I am free to consider all theories and make my own assessments.

I once asked what makes a theory more than imagination and was told the validity of the one making the theory. So basically, since I believe everyone has their own imagination anyone's theory is valid until proven.

I've always understood that "Dark" energy/matter was only a placeholder for unexplained cosmology physics.
Evidence of cosmological physics can be seen in atoms. Atoms are also the Universe.

Relativity is a major factor in observing expansion. Not only is there a size relativity there is a time relativity.

Many people I have talked with understand the Big Bang concept as an explosion. When someone thinks of an explosion they usually think a violent expansion from point A to surrounding points a distance away from point A. Material moves directionally.

I see the Big Bang as an eruption at all points at the same time. Like a percolation of matter forming at fractures of vacuum energy.
Matter, having mass and in turn gravity, sets everything to motion.
Over time, the matter creates greater gravity causing larger and larger scales of movement. The movement in space is created by gravity of mass, not the result of a big explosion.

Filaments are areas where the vacuum energy erupted into matter. With higher matter content, filaments condense into larger and stronger areas of gravity influence over the areas that did not have a strong vacuum energy eruption. These voids are caused by gravity of the filaments.

In this way I see space as percolating, pulsing unevenly. Our relative size and duration of observation is skewing the apparent results.

If you think about it, all celestial movement stems from gravity which is a product of mass. Sometime in the far future the Universe will consist of nothing but black hole singularities and those black holes will be moving around on the affects of mass's gravity. This will be long after the entire Milky Way galaxy has been collected to its black hole. I imagine a time when the majority of space will be the voids and the dying black holes will be filaments of matter/gravity like shattered glass (glass cube not pane).


The problem with measuring speed from distant objects is that gravity is affecting the observation. It must assume that the observation platform is steady and constant. Gravity is not steady and constant. The name "Gravitational Wave" even denotes a pulsing wave-like motion. Gravitational waves actually do exist, been scientifically proven to exist.

Since matter has mass and that mass results in variable gravitational waves determined by the amount of mass of any given object, space is a sea of gravitational waves of varied intensity and direction. It skews the precision of measurements over vast distances.

The Sun isn't just revolving around the Milky Way center. It moves up and down and round and round the Orion Arm's gravitational filament while it slowly moves closer and closer to the center of the galaxy. I believe that the milky way is moving in a similar fashion in relation to a larger gravitational filament. All this movement is relatively undetectable by us.
But, speed up time and take a more distant look and it could be seen, just like if you multiply time settings in Celestia to make the planets spin faster.

The only way we could ever claim anything about the movement of the Universe is if we take measurements from a significantly distant observation point outside the galaxy in which we reside.
Then compare the measurements.

I could be right, I could be wrong but the effects of gravity/mass can be observed at our relative scales. Since we are within the Universe we are witnessing the Universe. We are witnessing it within the conditions that exist in this part of the Universe.
We see how an atom is constructed. We can't know if a carbon atom has the same construction or distance of electron orbits in black holes or cosmic voids because we can't measure them in that environment naturally. We can try to simulate those conditions in a lab but those simulations will be skewed because the lab exists inside our cosmological environment.

Its possible that in a cosmic void an atom's protons and neutrons have an parabolic orbit to them and the electron orbits are at a greater distance from the center. Or...In a black hole atoms electrons do not orbit, they are fused to the nucleus.
If higher mass/gravity compacts then lower mass/less gravity should expand.

All these differences over distance changes the accuracy of observational deductions. Throw in time relativity and accuracy is changed even more.

X I'm just a moron myself..
But I always thought of the expansion of the universe or the Big Bang as being similar to taking a drag from a cigarette feeling you're lungs up.. and then exhaling all the smoke into a very large empty room.. from the starting point your mouth. The smoke is dense and thick but over time it spreads out throughout the whole room.. feeling the room completely.. overtime.. Dark Matter would just be what the room was filled with before the smoke was there... dark matter is unmeasurable.. I think.. but it must be able to move in order to accommodate room for the smoke.. in this example.. and after some time the entire room is filled with a light mist of smoke it would be rather hard to tell where the smoke originated from at what point in the room..
Did the smoke leave your mouth.. it gets dispersed evenly throughout the room...
Probably not the best example...
But my question would be.. they say the universe is endless.. in my example if you have a big enough room the amount of smoke or mass or energy that the smoke represents in this scenario.. the original Big Bang.. there's a point that there's not enough mass or energy to reach the other side of the room.. if the room was big enough.. now I myself have blown smoke into a rather large gymnasium when I was young.. just only the amount I could hold in my lungs.. and on the far far end in the gymnasium there was a little window..
After a few minutes you could just see a wisp of the smoke cutting through the Sunbeam coming in through the window...
It always amazed me how that one lung full of cigarette smoke could fill up that entire room....hmmm.... yes I get it now smoke particles are very tiny