Big_Bang v Redshift interpretation?

Big Bang, Multiverse Theory, Dark Energy, Dark Flow, data from the Planck Telescope all fit together very neatly ====> All of the above are inter-related.====> There is something profound contained in them.

DARK ENERGY

Observation: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Fact.

General Relativity: If you crank through the equations, IF space was pervaded by a thin "mist" of energy then that energy would create "Repulsive Gravity." ====> Dark Energy is predicted by General Relativity.

History: When Einstein cranked through GR he found that the universe should have collapsed on itself shortly after the Big Bang. Clearly, that was not what happened, so he added just enough Dark Energy (The concept of Dark Energy did not exist at the time, for Einstein it was a true Fudge Factor, but that is what he actually did, add invisible energy to the universe.) to make the universe steady state. At the time it was believed that the universe was steady state neither expanding or contracting. Einstein believed it and added a Fudge Factor he called the Cosmological Constant to make his calculations match what he believed to be true. Then Hubble showed that the universe was expanding. Einstein called the Cosmological Constant his "Biggest Blunder."

Now, years later we find that there is a need for a Cosmological Constant to "fine tune" GR to match what we see in the universe. It is no longer a Fudge Factor but the Energy Density of Dark Energy in our universe. Its value in Planck Units is 1.38 * 10^-122. When the Cosmological Constant is small, gravity causes a universe to collapse on itself. When the Cosmological Constant is large, the Dark Energy causes the universe to blow itself apart. Our universe is blowing itself apart, but it is close enough to the steady state balance density that the process has taken and will take billions of years.

UNITS:

Observations announced in 1998 of distance–redshift relation for Type Ia supernovae[4][5] indicated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. When combined with measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation these implied a value of ,[6] a result which has been supported and refined by more recent measurements. There are other possible causes of an accelerating universe, such as quintessence, but the cosmological constant is in most respects the simplest solution. Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant, which is measured to be on the order of 10−52 m−2, in metric units. Multiplied by other constants that appear in the equations, it is often expressed as 10−35 s−2, 10−47 GeV4, 10−29 g/cm3.[7] In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[8]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_why_is_our_u...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/the-planck-telesco...

Yes, Big bang theory is entirely the result of redshift interpretation, However the theory may be flawed, as not all Galaxies are moving apart, (red shifting) some are moving towards each other? (blue shifting)

Suggesting the Universe may be expanding in some parts and contracting in others, which does seem more of a balanced viewpoint, i.e. expanding and contracting.

Physics tries to be realistic,

Physics theory's try to be idealistic,

We all want the easy answer, which would be simple and idealistic, but real physics shows us real physics is very complex, unfortunately it seem's real physics is more complicated than initually theorized.

Population 1, 2 and 3 stars, especially the population 3 stars which are the furthest from us hence further back in time and only have hydrogen and helium. Elliptical versus spiral galaxies, the elliptical galaxies are further from us hence further back in time and are not as organized as spiral galaxies. The CMBR which is consistent in all directions and it is not explained by Olber's paradox; in both cases, it would take an expanding Universe to reduce the radiation from 10's of thousands of Kelvin to 2.75 Kelvin as an infinite planar light source would not diminish in intensity by spherical divergence ( both the CMBR and Olber's paradox would behave as an infinite planar light source ). The entire Universe is evidence for the Big Bang Theory.