Summations Only

Like others have mentioned, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Dark matter and dark energy are names given to observations. They are definitely not inventions.Let's start with dark matter. It was observed that that the motion of galaxies didn't match up with the estimated visible mass. Therefore, there had to be mass that wasn't luminous. Further observations have have used gravitational lensing to detect this matter that does not absorb or emit light, and apparently does not interact that much with luminous matter. One of the more observations was a collision between between two star clusters seen below: SLAC | Bold People. Visionary Science. Real Impact.The red represents the luminous matter and the blue represents the dark matter. They were able to show how the luminous matter interacts while the dark matter continues along the same path without interacting with the luminous matter.So to sum it up, we are now able to map dark matter in the universe so I would hardly call it an invention.As for dark energy, it is much like gravity. Gravity is the name of a force. Dark energy is no different. It is the name of the force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe. This acceleration is an observation, not something that is made up. Dark energy is not an invention either. I would vote for Quantum Mechanics as the most bazaar, but to each their own. When you blow up a balloon, where is the center of expansion on the surface of the balloon?

There is no center on the surface of the balloon, or rather there is no point that is more of the center than anywhere else. You may be mistakenly using the point in the center of the balloon instead of limiting yourself to the surface of the balloon.If I understand it correctly, if you travel in a straight line in this universe you will end up where you started just as you would if you were walking on the surface of a sphere. Our universe has no center, just as the surface of a sphere has no center.

Then the last thing you should be doing is finding creationist objections to the Big Bang model. Creationists are more interested in reducing our knowledge, not increasing it. For example: This isn't true. Never has been. How does one seek knowledge by being wrong?

Because we can recreate that epoch in high energy collisions here on Earth. Physicists observe the merging of electromagnetism and the weak force in high energy colliders. We know how much energy is needed to unify these forces. We also know that this energy density was present after the start of the Universe:

quote:

---

In physical cosmology the electroweak epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when the temperature of the universe was high enough to merge electromagnetism and the weak interaction into a single electroweak interaction (> 100 GeV). The electroweak epoch began when the strong force separated from the electroweak interaction. Some cosmologists place this event at the start of the inflationary epoch, approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang.[1][2][3] Others place it at approximately 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang when the potential energy of the inflaton field that had driven the inflation of the universe during the inflationary epoch was released, filling the universe with a dense, hot quark—gluon plasma.[4] Particle interactions in this phase were energetic enough to create large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. As the universe expanded and cooled, interactions became less energetic and when the universe was about 10−12 seconds old, W and Z bosons ceased to be created. The remaining W and Z bosons decayed quickly,[citation needed] and the weak interaction became a short-range force in the following quark epoch.
Electroweak epoch - Wikipedia

---

Dark matter observed here:
SLAC | Bold People. Visionary Science. Real Impact.Dark energy observed here:

quote:

---

By studying the spectra of supernovae or of the galaxies in which they explode, we can infer the redshift due to the expansion. Comparing the redshift with the distance for a large number of supernovae, we can derive the history of the cosmic expansion rate. In 1998, such measurements were first reported for supernovae at large distances, those which exploded when the universe was only two-thirds its present size. These supernovae appeared about 25% fainter, that is, farther away, than expected, an effect attributed to the speed-up of cosmic expansion over the last several billion years.
Overview - The Dark Energy Survey

---

The acceleration of expansion IS dark energy. That is the name given to it. It is what we observe. Sure you did. You made up a fantasy where the Big Bang was a myth. It isn't. It is an extremely well supported scientific theory that explains the evidence we have.

quote:

---

For contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.[1][2]
Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia

---

Do you think Nobel Prizes are awarded for imaginary particle interactions? Really?

They can go one step farther now. They can diretly observe gravitationaly lensing caused by dark matter. This is as much a direct observation as matter absorbing and emitting light. Not only have astronomers observed dark matter, but they are able to map where it is and its density:
Biggest Map Yet of Universe's Invisible Dark Matter Unveiled - Scientific American

Can you please cite a peer reviewed article that demonstrates this? How so? Why is it a better explanation?

Isn't that a wonderful double standard. We DO have results demonstrating the W and Z boson and the electroweak interaction, and yet you deny that as well. I don't see how you can complain about a lack of results at a given energy when you ignore those same results.

This seems to be an interesting intersection of a religionist mindset and the real world of science. The laws of physics are not dogmatic tenets of belief. Never have been, never will be. Science has thrown out plenty of laws over the last few centuries. When observation contradicts a law it is the law that we throw out, not the observations. Reality trumps Scientific Law. Please remember that.We are not talking about principles here. We are talking about OBSERVATIONS. The survey of type Ia supernovae demonstrated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Period. The observations demonstrate that over a long enough distance that the cumulative expansion will be greater than the speed of light resulting in a de Sitter Universe. This universe is a valide solution to General Relativity, but that hardly matters. What matters is that if a "law" is contradicted by observations of reality then it is the law that is wrong, not reality. This is a lesson that no creationists seems capable of learning.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So how does motion transfer from one body to the next? For example, why doesn't a baseball go right through the baseball bat? Why does it rebound and go flying in the other direction?

It does? I was under the impression that this coordinate system works just fine for a static and infinite universe. But we do have evidence that it occurred in the past. We observe the evidence of this event. So you are completely unaware that distant galaxies are red shifted due to them speeding away from us? Red shifted galaxies, cosmic microwave background, evolution of galaxies, abundance of light elements, and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect to name a few. Read more here:Evidence for the Big Bang

The metric was not Hoyle's undoing, it was the evidence. And there are indeed galaxies that are blue shifted, such as Andromeda which is hurtling towards us. Of course, I was referring to the galaxies which are not bound by gravity to our own galaxy. Those are red shifted, and I see nothing in your post that argues against this as an indication that they are receding from us. The conclusions follow from the evidence. Calling something ridiculous does not make it so. You are going to have to try harder than just calling people morons. Actually dealing with the evidence would be a good first step.

Not knowing what the universe is expanding into in no way puts the evidence of expansion in doubt. The universe IS expanding. That is what evidence points to. The cosmic microwave background evidences the fact that the univese was once opaque to light, but then became transparent about 14 billion years ago in our frame of reference (the frame of reference in which the CMB was measured). The abundance of light elements (H, He, and Li) also supports a starting point for our universe in past. A universe with an infinite past would have long ago ran out of hydrogen to fuse and would be in entropy death.

That's just it, we have been measuring it with rulers. Our rulers are standard candles such as type Ia supernovae. These give us accurate distances to other galaxies. We find a correlation between redshift and distance as measured by these standard candles. We also see time dilation effects in distant supernovae. This can only occur if they are indeed moving away from us at high speed.Perhaps you should justify your denial. Afterall, shouldn't we expect to see a redshift if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see time dilation effects in distant supernovae if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see a cosmic microwave backgroud radiation with specific characteristics if the universe had a beginning from a dense area of energy? You discount this evidence only because it is inconvenient for your beliefs.

The evidence makes it very plausible. Also, a static universe was the original cosmological model. The BB theory had a really tough time garnering support early in its life. However, as the evidence piled up it continued to support the BB theory and contradict a static universe.If you want to claim that the universe is static then you have to explain the evidence in terms of a static universe. First, there is Olber's Paradox. If the universe is infinite with infinite mass and energy then the night sky should be completely lit up by distant stars. It isn't. The night sky is quite dark. Why is that? You also need to explain why the universe has not reached entropy death. You need to explain why we observe a cosmic microwave background that exactly fits the predictions made by the BB theory. You need to explain why distant supernovae display time dilation effects. You need to explain the redshift.Instead, all I see is denial. You simply don't want the BB theory to be true, evidence be damned. That is simply not a rational way to approach reality.

You have never heard of entropy? You are unaware that hydrogen fuses into heavier elements in stars? Nothing is being taken for granted. I am going with OBSERVATIONS. If the universe has an infinite past then there would be no energy available for work. None. That is what thermodynamics shows us. Evidence please.